Eli Lake: Now Julian Assange cares about privacy? – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Julian Assange has had it with CNN. Since July 4, the founder of WikiLeaks has tweeted multiple times in support of Donald Trumps latest battle with the media: Gif-Gate.

Like many controversies in Washington these days, this one involves a tweet. Last week Trump tweeted a gif that portrayed him putting fake wrestling moves on a body with the CNN logo for its head.

Assanges interest in this is all about CNNs response. On July 5, the networks master internet sleuth, Andrew Kaczynski, tracked down the Reddit user who came up with the Trump-CNN wrestling video. But because the maker apologized on the forum, CNN decided not to name him. That said, CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

That last sentence has inspired some pearl clutching among Trumps supporters. The alt-right has accused CNN of blackmailing some poor Reddit user who just likes trolling the media.

Now it should go without saying that this is a very thin reed. According to CNN, the Reddit user voluntarily apologized for the gif and other memes that were racist and anti-Semitic. Also, CNN never threatened to disclose reams of private information on the Reddit user, just his name. But such is the nature of these social media kerfuffles in the age of Trump. Both sides try to maximize grievance. CNN accuses the president of inciting violence. Trumps supporters accuse CNN of mafia tactics.

Whats interesting here is how Assange responded. When Trump goes low CNN goes lower: threatens to dox artist behind CNN head video if he makes fun of them again, he tweeted, referring to the online tactic of posting someones personal details on the web. For two days, Assange continued along these lines, speculating that CNN may have even violated the law in censoring this artist.

Doxxing, as its known, usually applies to an online persona who wishes to remain anonymous. But the concept is closely related to the kind of thing Assange himself has been doing since he founded WikiLeaks, publishing the private communications of public figures.

Methinks the WikiLeaker doth protest too much. After all, Assanges organization posted the personal emails of John Podesta, Neera Tanden and other Democrats. And while some of those emails had legitimate news value, most of them didnt. Did the public really have a right to know Podestas risotto recipe?

The hacked emails WikiLeaks disclosed last year are different from the State Department cables provided to the organization by Chelsea Manning. While some of those cables endangered U.S. government sources in dangerous places, government documents in our republic belong to the people. The same cannot be said for the personal emails of Democratic operatives, who are exercising their right to political participation.

Assange is hardly alone as a participant in this new threat to online privacy. I wrote articles based on the hacked emails WikiLeaks published, as have many other journalists. Anonymous, the online hacker group, has doxxed people before as well. But Assange, as an advocate for radical transparency, has done much to usher in this new era.

And this new era should trouble us. In the 20th century, the state was the greatest threat to the individuals privacy. But in the internet era, where so much of our lives is online, this threat has been democratized. Individuals today pose a threat to privacy in a way we used to think was the sole province of the NSA and FBI. At any moment, an email, text or browsing history could be hacked and posted on the web for all to see. In an instant, our private lives can become public.

More recently, foreign governments have become threats to our privacy. Four U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Russia orchestrated a campaign to advantage Trump in the election through hacking and leaking the emails of leading Democrats. The Russians used this tactic in 2014 in combination with their special forces, when RT, the Kremlin-funded network, would post audio recordings of U.S. diplomats.

We are already starting to see imitators. Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon lost his job because emails and texts were leaked to the Associated Press that made it appear that he sought a business relationship with one of his sources. Solomon has said he never entered into such a relationship. On the eve of the Gulf crisis over Qatar, the Emirati ambassador to Washington had his Hotmail account hacked and his emails posted on the web.

None of this is to say that there is not news value to some of these disclosures. Its always a balance. The problem is that people like Assange never cared about this balance until now. For years he believed the publics right to know outweighed the privacy rights of his victims. Today he argues the privacy of an online troll outweighs the publics right to know who exactly is making the memes the president tweets in his war against CNN.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI.

Read this article:
Eli Lake: Now Julian Assange cares about privacy? - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

As Investors Turn to Cryptocurrencies, Gold Suffers – Investopedia

Investors looking to make an investment in an exciting new area are increasingly turning to cryptocurrencies. It's no wonder why: Bitcoin, the leading digital currency by market capitalization, has gained nearly 200% since the beginning of 2017. Ethereum, the next biggest currency, has gained more than 3,000% over the same period. (See also: Why Ethereum Prices Reached Record Highs.)

There are new currencies added to the list every month, and a sharp uptick in the number of initial coin offerings, or ICOs, means there are many other new startups and ventures related to the burgeoning crypto industry as well. As investors move to place their assets in the digital realm, demand in other areas seems to be drying up. In fact, gold may have been the most heavily impacted by the recent gains in the cryptocurrency world.

Cryptocurrency supply has actually dropped fairly significantly in recent months, according to a report by Business Insider. The rate of Bitcoins added to the market has more than halved in the past 12 months, from a rate of 9.3% to 4.4%.

If mining continues to slow down, Bitcoin won't reach its theoretical maximum number of 21 million Bitcoins until the year 2045, if not later. As supply has dwindled, prices have continued to rise.

It seems that the opposite may be true for gold. Gold production has climbed significantly since 2009, now sitting at 3,100 metric tons. This constitutes a record high level of production of the precious metal.

Tom Lee, managing partner and head of research for Fundstrat Global Advisors, indicated in a letter to clients that "cryptocurrencies are cannibalizing demand for gold. Bitcoin is arguably becoming a scarcer store of value. Investors need to identify strategies to leverage this potential rise in cryptocurrencies."

What could the future look like for the prices of Bitcoin and gold? Fundstrat's research indicates that prices for the cryptocurrency could climb by about eight times over the next five years, with Bitcoin prices reaching $20,000 during that time.

If the scenario turns out more bullish, Fundstrat believes Bitcoin could surge to more than $55,000 by 2022. What would happen to gold during that period? "Our model shows gold's value being relatively static against a rise in Bitcoin," Lee suggested.

Lee believes that if central banks begin to invest in Bitcoin and other digital currencies, that could speed up the process by which Bitcoin takes the place of gold in the international markets.

"Already central banks have looked into this possibility. In our view, this is a game changer, enhancing the legitimacy of the currency," he wrote. Of course, there are also analysts who believe a potential crash or bubble collapse is imminent in the cryptocurrency space, so only time will tell what will happen. (See also: Goldman Sachs Takes Bearish View on Bitcoin.)

Read the original post:
As Investors Turn to Cryptocurrencies, Gold Suffers - Investopedia

Is Solar-Powered Cryptocurrency Mining the Next Big Thing … – Investopedia

Cryptocurrency mining is a difficult and costly activity. Miners must pay to build rigs capable of vast amounts of processing power, and then the rigs themselves must be powered with large quantities of electricity. It's all a careful balance between how much the operation costs and how much profit it is able to generate. (See also: What Happens to Bitcoin After All 21 Million are Mined?)

With mining operations for Ethereum, one of the leading digital currencies on the market today, taking up the same share of electricity as that of a small country, miners have to be careful that they aren't spending more than they are making. Because of that, some mining operations have begun to look to solar-powered rigs, set up in the desert, in order to reduce mining costs and make the largest profit possible. (See also: Chinese Investment in Bitcoin Mining is Enormous.)

Mining operations with the tools and resources to be able to set up solar-powered rigs in the desert are finding that it is a good investment. Once you have paid for the solar panel system itself, the cost of mining is virtually free. Getting rid of a hefty electric bill which typically weighs down mining operations leaves more room for profit.

The Merkle recently documented a mining operation focused on Bitcoin in this manner. The setup has been running successfully for almost a year and currently uses 25 separate computing rigs. The process has been so profitable, in fact, that the miner running the operation plans to increase the number of computers to 1,000 this fall.

In the case of this particular desert miner, the individual mining rigs cost about $8,000. This cost has included all solar panels, power controls, batteries, and the Antminer S9 ASIC processor. When fully operational, each miner brings in a profit of about $18 per day.

Of course, a cheap mining operation is only part of the equation. In order for miners to make a tidy profit, the price of the cryptocurrencies they are generating must remain high.

In the case of the mining operation in question, Merkle suggests that Bitcoin prices must stay above $2,000 in order for the operation to be profitable. Considering that the price of most cryptocurrencies is highly volatile, and that drops of 205 or more have occurred in many individual days, this keeps a certain element of risk present in any mining operation.

It seems likely that more and more miners will turn to areas in which renewable energy is easily accessed. Iceland has already become a popular destination for Bitcoin miners thanks to its fast, virtually limitless internet. Miners looking to move to the desert should be cautious for other reasons, though: mining in the heat can cause rigs to break down more easily.

See more here:
Is Solar-Powered Cryptocurrency Mining the Next Big Thing ... - Investopedia

How Cryptocurrencies Really Work – Popular Mechanics

Money is changing. Just a few years ago saw the invention of Bitcoin, the world's first cryptocurrency, and today there are thousands of these cryptocurrencies being used by people all around the world including variants like Ethereum and Litecoin.

But what is a cryptocurrency? How does it work? There has been no shortage of explainers during Bitcoin's rise, but this new one from Youtuber 3Blue1Brown explains the whole process from the bottom up to give you an understanding of cryptocurrency as if you had invented it yourself:

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

In a typical currency, such as U.S. dollars, transactions are handled either through exchanging cash or via electronic transfers. These electronic transfers are managed by large banks that we trust to keep our money safe and our transactions honest.

To create a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, we first have to take the responsibility of keeping track of transactions away from banks and manage it ourselves. The first step is to create a ledger of everyone's payments to everyone else. This ledger will keep track of who owes money to who and records everyone's payments to each other.

The next step is to prevent people from cheating by adding transactions that one party much not agree on. One easy way to solve that problem is by requiring both people in the transaction to sign off on the payment. Each participant can add their "digital signature" using public/private key encryption so that everyone knows the transaction is legitimate.

But there's one last problem: Who owns the ledger? In a traditional currency system a bank would maintain it, but we're supposed to be building a currency that doesn't need banks. Instead, everyone has their own ledger, and all transactions are made public so everyone updates their ledger at the same time.

In this way, everyone can safely exchange money without worrying about whether the people handling it are trustworthy. Instead of trusting a central bank or a government to insure our transactions, we can simply use cryptography to force everyone to play fair. While cryptocurrencies are still in the early stages, in a few years they might be the preferred way to make payments all over the world.

Source: 3Blue1Brown

Visit link:
How Cryptocurrencies Really Work - Popular Mechanics

Cryptocurrency ATB Coin Offers Investors a Crypto-Lottery for the $20.000 Grand Prize. Only 2 Days Left! – CryptoCoinsNews

This is a sponsored story. CCN does not endorse, nor is responsible for any material included below and isnt responsible for any damages or losses connected with any products or services mentioned in the material below. CCN urges readers to conduct their own research with due diligence into the company, product or service mentioned below.

In less than 2 days, we will congratulate ATB Coin Crypto-Lottery winners. The Grand Prize fund of $20.000 is to be shared between 5 randomly chosen investors. The process and the results of lottery will be announced on a special page on ATB Coin website. The lottery will be held at 6 p.m. on July 11th for registered users who invest a minimum 200 ATB. For each 200 ATB, the investor gets one lottery ticket. The larger the amount invested, the greater the chance to win.

Prize funds are:

During the ICO, which still remains open today, the newly introduced cryptocurrency ATB Coin has already attracted 1700+ investors. Such an interest in this cryptocurrency is due to the numerous advantages of ATB Coin that is going to be the most secure, fast, and flexible, according to analysts. The strongest features of ATB Coin allow it to stand ahead of competition:

Being the one cryptocurrency combining the newest technologies, ATB Coin has all chances to overcome well-known inefficiencies within government central banks and other cryptocurrencies. Join ATB Coin, invest now in cryptocurrency of the future!

Read more:
Cryptocurrency ATB Coin Offers Investors a Crypto-Lottery for the $20.000 Grand Prize. Only 2 Days Left! - CryptoCoinsNews

REPORT: Manafort Coordinated With Wikileaks To Dump Clinton Emails – IR.net

Home News Politics

Posted By: Arthur Jones July 11, 2017

Share

175

Shares

As if these last two days hadntcaused the White House to go into panic mode enough, a new report from former White House Staffer, Claude Taylor, indicates that Paul Manaforts ties to Wikileaks may have been much tighter than initially thought. Manafort has had his name come up multiple times when discussing possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia, including just this past weekend when a New York Times Report indicated that he, along with Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushnermetwith a Russian attorney to discuss damaging information about the DNC and Clinton. If Taylors sources are accurate, then the depth of Manaforts involvement, in what seems to certainly appear to be collusion, may have expanded quite a bit.

Taylor, who claims to be in contact with an individual close to the Mueller investigation, just tweeted the following bombshell:

Breaking: Source with knowledge of investigation says there is solid proof that Manafort coordinated with Wikileaks in dumping HRC emails.

We assume that the emails that Taylors source is referring to are the John Podesta emails that leaked in November of last year. These emails happened to include messagesto andfrom Clinton herself. Manafort, who served as Trumps campaign manager for several months between May 19, 2016 and August 18, 2016, was never rumored to have any communication with Wikileaks, however another Trump campaign associate, Roger Stone, admitted to not only having a relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange, but also claimed to have communicated with Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who allegedly stole the DNC emails.

Considering that Roger Stone had supposedly convinced Donald Trump to hire Manafort to be his campaign manager, it would not seem out of the question for Manafort to have communicated and coordinated the release of such emails via Wikileaks.

When you combine this story with the fact that a GOP operative named Peter W. Smith claimed to have been working with those in the Trump campaign to access the missing Clinton emails from Russian hackers, the story seems to certainly have legs.

Excerpt from:
REPORT: Manafort Coordinated With Wikileaks To Dump Clinton Emails - IR.net

Chelsea Manning: ‘The Wealthy’ Don’t Pay Taxes, So We Must Force Them To, or Something – Townhall

Between attacking President Trump's important and robust (if somewhat hypocritical) defense of Western civilization in Warsaw, and defending Linda Sarsour's call for 'jihad' against the Trump administration (coupled with a dangerously wrong-headed anti-assimilation jeremiad), many on the hard Left continue to showcase seriously misaligned moral compasses. The degree to which elements of the Democratic base have embraced and celebrated Chelsea Manning is further evidence of this phenomenon. Yesterday, Manning tweeted a stupefyingly ignorant pronouncement that generated thousands of likes and shares on social media:

Where to begin? Let's go point by point:

(1) Taxation is a sharing of responsibility in a number of ways, though it's quite difficult to swallow a lecture on shared civic responsibility from someone who was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence for violating his oath and breaking the law when he leaked (Manning identified as a man at the time of his treacherous acts) a massive trove of national security secrets in a profoundly irresponsible manner. A refresher from David French:

Bradley Manning was no ordinary leaker. When he dumped hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic secrets into the public domain, he violated every single tenet of the warrior ethos. He abandoned the mission. He accepted defeat and, through his data dumps, worked to facilitate it. He quit on his comrades, acting with utter, callous disregard for their lives. His message to his unit and to his nation was clear: He would disobey lawful orders and risk killing his comrades to, in his words, stimulate worldwide discussions, debates, and reforms...In such a case, commanders have a sacred obligation to protect their soldiers. Its a matter of maintaining a bond with the men and women they lead. There can be no tolerance of true betrayal, and the military to its credit sought a severe sentence for Manning, attempting to make the punishment fit his crime. It fought for life imprisonment, and ultimately obtained a 35-year sentence that itself was an act of unreasonable mercy.

Incidentally, how many of the liberals who have been in high dudgeon for months over Wikileaks' role in helping Russia interfere in the US election were unperturbed by Manning's partnership with Julian Assange to expose American secrets? It's almost as if reflexive partisans on both sides of the ideological divide determine their views on Wikileaks based upon the immediate political implications of the material it releases.

(2) Taxation is also a form of legal theft, wherein -- despite Harry Reid's bizarre spin -- the government coercively confiscates a portion of its citizens' income. This view is not held "only" by the wealthy. Some of the most fanatical libertarians and objectivists in America are by no means well-to-do, and some of the richest people on the planet are enthusiastically pro-taxation statists. Google a group of insufferably self-righteous left-wingers who call themselves the "patriotic millionaires," if you're so inclined.

(3) "They don't pay taxes" is just a much dumber version of the standard "fair share" argument liberals make in support of imposing an ever-heavier tax burden upon high income earners and businesses. It's risibly false to assert that the wealthy don't pay taxes, and therefore need to be "made" to do so. The rich not only pay taxes, they pay more than their fair share of them. From my myth-busting post on this subject, published this past spring:

The top one percent of US wage-earners make less than one-fifth of the total income in the United States, yet pay close to 40 percent of all federal income taxes, and more than one-quarter of all federal taxes...The top 20 percent of US wage-earners ("the rich," broadly defined), make just over half of total US income, yet pay close to 90 percent of all federal income taxes, and approximately 70 percent of the total federal tax bill. It is flat-out wrong to say that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share; they're statistically paying a disproportionately high percentage of federal taxes.

To frame this in terms that Chelsea Manning might understand, because "the wealthy" pay roughly 70 percent of the overall federal tax bill, this group proportionally provided about $35,000 of the estimated $50,000 gender-reassignment treatment and surgery (nearly the median household income in America) she received courtesy of taxpayers while incarcerated for betraying her country. As an expression of her gratitude, Manning now demands that the government -- whose laws she flagrantly, willfully and unapologetically broke, only to be released by President Obama -- forcibly extract more money from law-abiding taxpayers, as lefties cheer her on. It's enough to rouse an exasperated writer to devote an entire essay to refuting a stupid tweet from a minor, ignominious celebrity. Sometimes, Donald Trump's victory in middle America isn't a mystery that's especially difficult to untangle.

Military Plane Crashes in Mississippi; At Least 12 Dead

Officer Who Killed Castile Gets $48,500 in Agreement

The rest is here:
Chelsea Manning: 'The Wealthy' Don't Pay Taxes, So We Must Force Them To, or Something - Townhall

Making an Example Out of Manning – PKKH

After over three years of solitary confinement, the US judicial system has proven its bias against the right to freedom of speech and information granted to the people of the US in the First Amendment. Manning, who in February of this year said he had a clear conscience I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan was a target that needed to be engaged and neutralised but people struggling to live in the pressure cooker of asymmetric warfare

The prosecution rested its case, on 21th August, in the court martial of Bradley Manning, the Army private who had admitted to leaking 700,000 documents exposing US military atrocities and other crimes to the WikiLeaks website in April of 2010.

The prosecutor, Major Ashden Fein, dropped one of the 22 charges against Manning. That charge alleged Manning had leaked intelligence to an enemy whose name is classified.

In charging Manning with aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the US government is equating the publication of classified information about its secret and illegal activities with espionage, treason and aiding terrorists. It is doing so on the spurious grounds that such information can end up in the hands of forces considered by the government to be hostile.

In fact, as the Obama administration and the military well know, Manning released the information to inform the American people of war crimes being carried out by the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan and diplomatic intrigues targeting many other countries.

The Baghdad helicopter attack video especially made impact on the American conscience. Manning initially faced up to 90 years in prison for leaking more than 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports and State Department diplomatic cables in 2010 while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq. He also leaked video of an U.S. helicopter attack in Baghdad in which at least nine people were killed, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver.

He didnt kill anyone as far as I know, former Fort Meade medic Ken Howland says of U.S. soldier Bradley Manning.

But the Pentagon has come up with perhaps a more excruciating punishment for him. After 3 years of trial Manning has suddenly come up with a confession of being Chelsea instead of Bradley; its a wonder what solitary confinements and torture can bring out of a person!

Inside a tiny cell in the bases prison block languishes the object of their mission a slightly-built, fresh-faced young man called Bradley Manning, held in conditions that have been compared to those at the notorious detention camps Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. His cell does not have a window and on the rare occasions he is allowed out, the clanking of the chains that shackle his hands and feet tend to drown out other sounds.

The US military has a history of getting out of torture allegations on technicalities. Its spokespeople would doubtless claim that keeping Manning in solitary confinement under strip lighting for 23 hours a day, forcing him to sleep naked and depriving him of all rights, strained at the definition of torture but did not snap it. Yet it was within the US militarys power to treat Manning as a human being. It chose instead to torment him in a tiny cell and seemed remarkably relaxed about who knew it. The message to everybody else is clear.

And they are tracing his mentally disturbed life right from his mothers fetus.

Pte First Class Bradley Manning, 25, showed signs of foetal alcohol syndrome, said Capt David Moulton, a clinical psychiatrist, who testified in court that day. Moulton described Mannings facial features that characterised the syndrome, such as his smooth, thin upper lip, and looked over at him in the courtroom.

Recently Mannings gender-identity struggle a sense of being a woman in a mans body was brought up by the defense at the court-martial.

George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the Army does not provide such treatment or sex-reassignment surgery. He said soldiers behind bars are given access to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals.

Mannings case appeared to be the first time the therapy had come up for a military prisoner, It can be also argued that Manning might be gaining sympathy in front of court after such brutal torture.

Bradley Manning is no doubt being made an example for aspiring whistleblowers to think before they come up with the idea of saving the humanity again..

Link:
Making an Example Out of Manning - PKKH

Former GCHQ boss backs end-to-end encryption – The Register

Former GCHQ director Robert Hannigan has spoken out against building backdoors into end-to-end encryption (e2) schemes as a means to intercept communications by terrorists and other ne'er do wells.

UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has criticised mobile messaging services such as WhatsApp, that offer end-to-end encryption in the wake of recent terror outages, such as the Westminster Bridge attack, arguing that there should be no place for terrorists to hide.

Hannigan, who led GCHQ between November 2014 and January 2017, struck a different tone in an interview with BBC Radio 4 flagship news programme Today on Monday morning, arguing there's no simple answer on the national security challenges posed by encryption.

"Encryption is overwhelmingly a good thing," Hannigan said. "It keeps us all safe and secure. Throughout the Cold War and up until 15 years ago it was something only governments could do at scale."

The former spy agency boss described the availability of e2e encryption in smartphone apps available to everyone is, broadly, a good thing.

"The challenge for governments is how do you stop the abuse of that encryption by the tiny amount of people who want to do bad things, like terrorists and criminals," Hannigan said.

"You can't un-invent end-to-end encryption you can't legislate it away," he added.

The former head of GCHQ favours co-operation between government agencies and private (tech) companies "to find a way around it" rather than passing laws that oblige tech providers to weaken the encryption of their technology or install backdoors.

"I don't advocate building in backdoors," Hannigan said. "It's not a good idea to weaken security for everybody in order to tackle a minority.

The best solution is to "target the people who are abusing" encryption systems and go after the smartphone or laptops they are using.

"Trying to weaken the system, trying to build in backdoors won't work and is technically difficult," Hannigan reiterated.

e2e schemes are a subset of encryption in general but present a tougher challenge for law enforcement and government because service provides don't hold the private keys needed to decipher data.

Not all encryption works end to end. As well as malware implants on end point devices, encryption schemes can be broken through protocol weakness and implementation flaws.

Hannigan referenced the 1980s Clipper Chip debacle in saying he doesn't think legislation to weaken crypto would work now either. "The Americans tried that in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration and it didn't work. I can't see, particularly since most of these companies are US based, that legislation is the answer."

The co-operation Hanningan advocates with tech firms is more difficult after the revelations from former NSA sysadmin Edward Snowden. This is not just because of pressure from consumers for tech firms to offer technologies more resistant against government snooping but because firms, such as Google, who co-operate with the US government in handing over data under schemes such as PRISM were angered to discover that the NSA was pulling other tricks such as hacking into links between their data centre too.

Telcos, in particular, co-operated with law enforcement agencies across the world in lawful interception schemes for years before smartphones and endpoint devices rather than telecom switches became the necessary focus of surveillance efforts as the result of advances in technology such as the rise of mobile messaging and apps such as WhatsApp, Apple iMessage and Telegram, among others.

The former GCHQ boss - who started off his tenure criticising tech giants for acting as a "command and control" networks of choice for terrorists and criminals back in November 2014 - underwent something of a conversion in attitudes as a spy agency boss.

By March 2016 he was had softened his stance and begun advocating co-operation with tech giants, such as Google and Apple, a line he expanded and updated during his interview on Monday morning, which is well worth a listen.

Hanningan also wants technology firms to get together and apply their "engineering brilliance" to tackle the abuse of the internet as a vehicle for spreading terrorist propaganda and radicalisation. "Legislation is a blunt last resort," he said.

Lastly, in a wide-ranging interview, Hanningan said Russia as a country was responsible for a "disproportionate amount of mayhem in cyberspace" such as attacks on democratic institutions as well as the activities of cyber-criminal groups. He praised the creation of the UK's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) in improving defences ("the private sector needs to get better") as well as French President Emmanuel Macron's public condemnation as positive moves in combating the problem. Hanningan went on to suggest that sanctions and other measures against Russia over cyber espionage might be necessary to set "red lines" while acknowledging much online malfeasance comes from cybercrime elements.

"There is an overlap of crime and state and a deeply corrupt system that allows crime to flourish. But the Russian state could do a lot to stop that and it can certainly rein in its own activity," Hanningan concluded.

Read more here:
Former GCHQ boss backs end-to-end encryption - The Register

Turnbull handballs encryption problem to tech companies – iTnews

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has put the onus on the technology companies providing end-to-end encryption to work out ways law enforcement can access the communications of criminals and terrorists.

In a speech in London overnight, Turnbull said companies should not be able to build end-to-end encryption tools that meant nobody - including courts and law enforcement - could access the content of communications.

The Australian government - along with its G20 counterparts - is looking at ways it can legally gain access to encrypted messages.

The government has repeatedly denied it is asking for backdoors to be built into encrypted messaging products, however technology companiesand security experts say encrypted communications - for which individual users hold the decryption keys - cannot be accessed without doing so.

Attorney-General George Brandislast month saidthe government would try to secure co-operation from technology companies and internet service providers through an agreed set of protocols, rather than legal requirements.

He also hinted at a potential tweaking of warrant exchanges between Australian and Five Eyes law enforcement to more easily access data in those jurisdictions.

"What we need is to develop, and what well be asking the device makers and the ISPs to agree to, is a series of protocols as to the circumstances in which they will be able to provide voluntary assistance to law enforcement," Brandis said.

"There is also, of course, the capacity which exists now in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand under their legislation for coercive powers, but we dont want to resort to that. We want to engage with the private sector to achieve a set of voluntary solutions."

Turnbull overnight told technology companies "the ball is in your court" when it comes to finding a solution to the problem.

"... just as a locked bank vault or filing cabinet cannot resist a court order to produce a document, why should the owners of encrypted messaging platforms like Whatsapp or Telegram or Signal be able to establish end to end encryption in such a way that nobody, not the owners and not the courts have the ability to find out what is being communicated," Turnbull said.

"[We are saying to Sillicon Valley] youhave created messaging applications which are encrypted end to end, they are being used by terrorists and criminals to hide their murderous plans.

"You must ensure that these dark places can be illuminated by the law so that the freedoms you hold dear will not be stripped away by criminals your technologies have made undetectable."

Turnbull conceded it would be a "difficult conversation" but argued the best defence against terrorists was "good intelligence".

"We have in the last few years disrupted 12 major terrorists plots, including several that would have resulted in large mass casualty attacks," he said.

"How many more can we disrupt if every communication, by every conspirator, is encrypted end to end and cannot be read despite every lawful right, indeed duty, so to do?"

The prime minister reiterated that the government would not pursue backdoors or access to technology companies' source code.

More here:
Turnbull handballs encryption problem to tech companies - iTnews