What is WikiLeaks and what are some of its biggest leaks? From Chelsea Manning and the US diplomatic cables to … – The Sun

Itwas set up as an anti-secrecy organisation to allow whistleblowers to release information anonymously

WHISTLEBLOWING website Wikileaks has been a thorn in the side of governments, armies and spy agencies for a decade by publishing secret papers online.

Heres the lowdown on its most shocking and embarrassing leaks from Chelsea Mannings Iraq files to Emmanuel Macrons leaked emails.

PA:Press Association

Wikileaks was set up in 2006 as an anti-secrecy organisation to allow whistleblowers to release information anonymously.

By 2015, the WikiLeaks website had published more than ten million documents including some classified as top secret.

The organisation says its purpose is to bring important news and information to the public so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

From early on it has faced fierce criticism from governments and defence and intelligence officials who accuse it of being irresponsible.

It is hosted on computer servers based in several countries around the world such as Iceland and Sweden where the law protects disclosures, putting it out of reach of efforts by US law enforcement bodies to close it down.

The US Justice Department launched a criminal probe into Wikileaks and its outspoken founder Julian Assange after the leak of diplomatic cables in 2010.

Getty Images

In 2010 Wikileaks published a series of three mega leaks using information passed to it by US Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who later changed her name to Chelsea.

The whistleblower leaked more than 700,000 classified documents related tothe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 251,287 diplomatic cables from US embassies and 482,232 Army reports.

One of the most damaging for the US was a video called Collateral Murder, footage of unarmed Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists being gunned down by American Apache helicopters.

The storm generated by this video made Wikileaks and Assange household names around the world.

The first mega leak was a tranche of more than 91,000 documents from the war in Afghanistan.

Wikileaks handed the juciest papers to newspapers including The Guardian and the New York Times, which revealed how the US military killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents.

This was eclipsed by the Iraq War logs some 391,832 field reports the biggest leak in the military history of the United States.

They recorded more than 66,000 civilian deaths many more than had previously been admitted.

Some 700 civilians including pregnant women were killed by US troops at checkpoints, papers revealed.

They also showed sickening torture of prisoners by Iraqi forces, and that US commanders had a policy of ignoring allegations of rape and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers.

Later Wikileaks began releasing it stash of diplomatic cables from US embassies, including embarrassingly candid assessments of the USAs allies and the revelation the US and Britain spied on UN secretary general Kofi Annan.

Manning was jailed for 35 years for breached of the Epionage Act but was released this year after her sentence was commuted by outgoing president Barack Obama.

Wikileaks has publishedmaterial exposing toxic waste dumping on the ivory coast, Scientology manuals and Guantanamo Bay detention camp procedures.

More recently,Wikileaks claimed UK government helped CIA hack Samsung Smart TVs and turn them into microphones.

It has been reported that TV viewers were stalked by a virus in their set called the Weeping Angel.

Software was also allegedly developed by the CIA to hack into peoples smartphones, computers and cars.

It claimed the papers dubbedVault 7 expose how a sinister TV surveillance program was developed by UK and US spy chiefs.

British agents were said to have been put in danger by the release of classified documents.

Wikileaks also published thousands of emails from Hillary Clintons campaign in the final weeks of the race for the White House.

Assange defended the publication, denying links with Russia and claims that his website was trying to influence the US vote.

In July 2017 the site published 20,000 hacked email from Emmanuel Macrons campaign when he was running for president of France.

They cast doubt on his tough Brexit stance as it was revealed he was advised staying close to the UK was a key priority for France as Britain is the most important military player in Europe.

View original post here:
What is WikiLeaks and what are some of its biggest leaks? From Chelsea Manning and the US diplomatic cables to ... - The Sun

Factbox: Long history of US leakers to media facing charges – Reuters

(Reuters) - While one focus of the leak crackdown announced on Friday by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is on journalists who receive leaked information, another is on suspected leakers.

Republican President Donald Trump has complained for months about leaks to the news media, but his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, also took a hard line on leaking.

Eight of the 12 cases where federal prosecutors charged individuals with violating the Espionage Act, a World War One-era law aimed at keeping sensitive information out of the hands of the United States' enemies, were brought under Obama. Here are the 12 cases, dating back 46 years.

Daniel Ellsberg became the first such case in 1971 when prosecutors accused the national security analyst and his colleague, Anthony Russo, of providing what would become known as the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other media outlets. The secret documents revealed the extent of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Charges against the two men were dismissed when a judge found that the government had wiretapped Ellsberg, possibly illegally.

Samuel Morison, a former Navy intelligence analyst, was charged in 1984 with illegally passing secret photographs of Soviet ships to a magazine, Jane's Defence Weekly. He pleaded not guilty, but a jury convicted him, making him the first person convicted under the Espionage Act for divulging secrets to the press. He was sentenced to two years in prison but paroled. President Bill Clinton pardoned him.

Lawrence Franklin, a Defense Department employee, was charged in 2005 with passing classified information about Iran to two pro-Israel lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. Franklin pleaded guilty and received a 12-year sentence. Eventually, after the government's case against Rosen and Weissman collapsed, a judge reduced Franklin's sentence to 10 months in a halfway house.

Shamai Leibowitz was an FBI translator when material that he heard while translating ended up on a blog. He reached an agreement with prosecutors before he was charged, and pleaded guilty in 2009 to one count of disclosing classified information. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison.

Former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake was suspected in 2010 of revealing information about the agency's warrantless wiretapping program. He was indicted under the Espionage Act but said the only information he leaked was about waste in an NSA program, which he gave to the Baltimore Sun. The 10 felony counts were dropped when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and received no prison time.

Chelsea Manning, an Army private first class formerly known as Bradley Manning, turned over more than 700,000 classified files to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in the biggest breach of secret data in U.S. history. Manning was found guilty of 19 counts but acquitted of the most serious one, aiding the enemy. She was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years in a military prison but was released in May after Obama, in his last days in office, commuted the final 28 years of Manning's sentence.

Stephen Kim, a U.S. State Department contract analyst, allegedly divulged to a Fox News reporter what U.S. intelligence believed about how North Korea would respond to new sanctions. A grand jury indicted him in 2010 for disclosing defense information and making false statements. He pleaded guilty in 2014 and was sentenced to thirteen months in prison. He was released in May 2015.

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling was charged in 2011 with illegally disclosing classified information about Iran to James Risen, a New York Times reporter, for his book "State of War." A jury convicted Sterling in 2015. A judge sentenced him to 42 months in prison.

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was charged in 2012 with divulging to journalists secret information about the CIA's interrogation program, including the identity of a covert officer. In an agreement with prosecutors, he pleaded guilty to one count and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. He was released in February 2015 on condition that he serve three months of house arrest.

U.S. officials said in June 2013 they had filed sealed criminal charges against former NSA contractor Edward Snowden for unauthorized leaks and theft of government property. Snowden prompted a worldwide debate after he gave documents to newspapers showing the extent of U.S. surveillance programs. Russia granted him asylum.

Former FBI bomb analyst Donald Sachtleben agreed in September 2013 to plead guilty to disclosing national defense information for telling an Associated Press reporter details of a failed airline bombing attempt by Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. A judge sentenced Sachtleben that year to a 43-month prison term for the national security offenses and a consecutive 97-month term for unrelated child pornography charges.

The Justice Department charged U.S. intelligence contractor Reality Leigh Winner with violating the Espionage Act for leaking a classified report on Russian interference in U.S. elections to The Intercept. The NSA report described Russian efforts to launch cyber attacks on at least one U.S. voting software supplier and send "spear-phishing" emails to more than 100 local officials days before the Nov. 8, 2016 election.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe, Joseph Ax and David Ingram; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Jonathan Oatis

Read the original here:
Factbox: Long history of US leakers to media facing charges - Reuters

Chelsea Manning’s story should inspire us to fight for a better world – Red Flag

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning is a person of conscience and bravery who has withstood the most humiliating of punishments. If anyone can claim to have spoken truth to power and suffered the consequences, its her.

From 2007 to 2009, Manning, an intelligence analyst for the US military, had access to tens of thousands of documents that detailed the nature of the US wars of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. As she trawled through video, statistics and data, she had a revelation:

Once you come to realise that the co-ordinates in these records represent real places, that the dates are our recent history and that the numbers represent actual human lives with all of the love, hope, dreams, hate, fear and nightmares with which we all live then you cannot help but be reminded just how important it is for us to understand and, hopefully, prevent such tragedies in the future.

Manning began to see through the fog of impersonal statistics to the brutal reality of the occupations. She began to comprehend the levels of barbarism involved in 21st century asymmetric warfare. She saw that the torture and murder of civilians were fundamental elements of these wars.

Furthermore, she began to understand the impunity with which the US military operated. War crimes were committed and systematically covered up with lies and deception. For Manning, it was too much. Her conscience would not allow compliance. She decided to act. In November 2009, Manning reached out to several news sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the whistleblower site WikiLeaks, to see whether they would be prepared to publish files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only WikiLeaks expressed interest.

In early 2010, Manning downloaded 400,000 documents that became known as the Iraq War logs, and 91,000 documents from the Afghanistan database. She smuggled these out of her base on a CD she had titled Lady Gaga. The files were transferred to an SD card. While on leave in Maryland, she went to a Barnes & Noble bookstore and uploaded the files to WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks then proceeded to release the information. The first high profile release featured video of a US helicopter attack in Baghdad in July 2007. The attack killed 12 people, including two Reuters journalists. The footage was particularly shocking because it contained audio of the helicopter gunmen revelling in the attack. As one of them opens fire, he yells, Hahaha. I hit em! and Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards. As other civilians rush in to help the wounded, one of the helicopters starts shelling again.

In July and November 2010, two further tranches of material were released. One focused on Afghanistan, the other on Iraq. Not only did these files reveal further massacres; they also demonstrated that US authorities knew about them and did nothing.

Another set of documents revealed that the Iraqi army, with the knowledge of the US authorities, had been engaging in systemic torture of prisoners, who had been shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks.

The leaks, published by the Guardian, revealed other important information. For instance, the US and its allies had long maintained that there were no hard statistics on the number of casualties in Iraq. Mannings leaks put paid to that lie. The field reports revealed that between 2004 and 2009 there was a total of 109,000 violent deaths in Iraq.

More than 66,081 of these were non-combatant deaths. These staggering figures underlined the depths of barbarism associated with the war. Mannings leaks played a vital role in exposing the lie that the Iraq was a war of liberation. In fact, it was a violent war of occupation in the service of empire.

The November cache of secret diplomatic cables not only revealed deep levels of corruption among the US ruling class; they also demonstrated the extent to which companies and governments across the Middle East were pilfering public money, engaging in underhand deals and making billions of dollars in the process. The information in these files added fuel to the fire of the Arab revolutions the following year. Here was hard evidence of the contempt the rich and powerful held for their own populations.

The Manning leaks caused a global furore and left the US ruling class scrambling. Its mask of civility had slipped. The brutal reality of war, occupation and empire was on full display. This was something the US state could not abide. Capitalism maintains itself through a pretence of law, order and morality. The ruling class claims that its system is rational and humane, but when evidence proves the contrary, someone has to pay a price. In this instance it was Chelsea Manning.

After the release of the Iraq War logs, Manning was taken into military custody. She was flown from Operating Base Hammer outside Baghdad to a prison camp in Kuwait. In this scorching, sandblasted place she was locked in a cage inside a tent. In July, she was charged with leaking information and transferred to a military prison at Quantico, Virginia. This was where the torture really began.

The New York Times reported that Manning was humiliated and degraded. They revealed that the guards had stripped her and left her naked in her cell for seven hours, and that she was required to stand naked outside her cell during inspection.

She was put into solitary confinement and was under constant surveillance. Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald declared that Manning was being imprisoned under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.

In 2011, Mannings first pre-trial hearing began. She spent two long years in military prison before her case was heard in 2013. For nine months of this time, she was kept in solitary confinement.

The UN special rapporteur who wrote on her imprisonment in 2012 said: [I]mposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence.

Accompanying this physical torture was a campaign of public vilification. News outlets pilloried Manning as a traitor. Right wing shock jocks called for her execution. President Barack Obama, the darling of liberals everywhere, declared that Manning had broken the law and had to face the consequences.

She was prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, which allows whistleblowers to be given the harshest of punishments. Manning pleaded guilty to leaking military information, but not guilty to other charges, including aiding the enemy. These crimes carried a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

On 21 August, Manning was found guilty of violating the Espionage Act and was sentenced to 35 years in the Fort Leavenworth prison in Kansas. Greenwalds description of visiting Manning in prison gave a glimpse of how isolated she was from the rest of the world:

In 2015, I visited her at Fort Leavenworth. To get there, one must fly to Kansas City, then drive more than an hour into the woods of Kansas, in the proverbial middle of nowhere. One arrives at a sprawling, completely militarised base, Fort Leavenworth, where it was quite difficult to gain access.

Upon entering, one drives another 15 to 20 minutes deep into the military base to arrive at the military brig, which itself is a labyrinth of cages and security measures that must be navigated in order to finally meet her somewhere in the bowels of that prison.

The day after her conviction, Manning announced to the world that she no longer identified as Bradley Manning and requested that she be supported to undergo treatment to transition from male to female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible, she wrote. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun.

To begin such a transition is difficult in the best of circumstances, with the most supportive of colleagues, friends or family. To attempt it in an intensely regulated, abusive and isolated environment requires a special kind of strength.

Unsurprisingly, the military was not going to grant Manning hormone therapy without a fight. Manning organised a petition campaign from prison and went on hunger strike. The prison authorities became more and more hostile. To break her spirit, they put her under constant surveillance. She described the experience:

For 17 hours a day, I sat directly in front of at least two Marine Corps guards seated behind a one-way mirror. I was not allowed to lay down. I was not allowed to lean my back against the cell wall. I was not allowed to exercise. Sometimes, to keep from going crazy, I would stand up, walk around, or dance, as dancing was not considered exercise by the Marine Corps.

She became so disillusioned and desperate that she attempted suicide. As one article commented, the military authorities punished her for trying to live and also for trying to die. In the wake of her suicide attempt she was threatened with indefinite solitary confinement.

The campaign outside the prison stepped up the pressure and, in 2016, the army finally agreed to some of her demands. She was allowed the hormone therapy but they forcibly shaved her head to prevent her from growing her hair.

While in prison, Manning kept up her engagement with the outside world. She wrote a regular column for the Guardian, in which she commented on a variety of issues. She became an active and outspoken campaigner for LGBTI rights. Her writing reveals a person of political commitment. She wasnt naive. She knew the consequences. She claimed that she wanted to release the documents to prompt worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. I want people to see the truth, regardless of who they are, because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public, she wrote.

Just before the end of his term, Obama commuted her sentence. This was welcome, but in no way makes up for the years of overseeing her imprisonment and torture. Furthermore, Obama cannot be allowed off the hook for the crucial role he played in continuing the occupation of Afghanistan and in fomenting sectarian tension in Iraq.

Since her release, Manning has continued her political engagement. In a recent piece on the legacy of the Obama years, she comments on the necessity of an uncompromising politics:

We need someone who is unafraid to be criticised, since you will inevitably be criticised. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Our lives are at risk especially for immigrants, Muslim people and black people.

We need to stop asking them to give us our rights. We need to stop hoping that our systems will right themselves. We need to actually take the reins of government and fix our institutions. We need to save lives by making change at every level.

Chelsea Mannings story of self-sacrifice and unyielding persistence should steel the rest of us in our fight for a better world. If someone buried in the dungeons of US military prisons can fight their way to clear air, then we can too. If Manning could take the path of humanity and justice, despite the personal risk she faced, then so can the rest of us.

View original post here:
Chelsea Manning's story should inspire us to fight for a better world - Red Flag

Documentary captures tumultuous life of Julian Assange – North Shore News

Risk. Directed and produced by Laura Poitras. Featuring Julian Assange. Rating: 7 (out of 10)

People can be split into three disparate groups when it comes to Julian Assange: those who view the WikiLeaks founder as a freedom-of-information demigod, those who revile him for helping Trump win the election, and those who get him mixed up with Edward Snowden.

If you are in the latter camp, you may be forgiven: there is more than a little crossover between the two men, including the filmmaker herself. Laura Poitras was the recipient of encrypted emails revealing the governments covert-surveillance programs, emails sent by none other than Snowden. (She flew to Hong Kong and filmed the entire thing in her award-winning documentary Citizenfour.) That meeting, and Poitras refusal to post the information to

WikiLeaks, is what ends the much longer collaboration between Assange and the filmmaker, a relationship that began in 2010.

Poitras film plays not unlike a season of Homeland: there are episodic stops in Cairo during the Arab Spring aftermath, conversations with White House staffers warning them of impending security breaches, allegations of sexual assault, elaborate disguises (complete with hair dye and coloured contact lenses), and endless surveillance and stakeouts by governmental agencies.

Assange started hacking as a teenager and founded WikiLeaks in 2006. There were early leaks about Guantanamo Bay and the Church of Scientology, and 90,000 classified documents from the war in Afghanistan and civilian casualties. Critics pointed to the security risks while advocates saw Wikileaks as a means to expose increasingly covert U.S. operations and surveillance on its public. The news value is paramount in everything we do, says Assange.

A video of an Apache helicopter mowing down Iraqi reporters and civilians is sent to Wikileaks via Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning). We see Assange watching the trial with dismay, and later calling Hilary Clinton a war-monger.

Sometimes I cant believe what Julian allows me to film, Poitras says during one of her production-log voiceovers. This includes a phonecall to his mum in Australia (with girlfriend Sarah Harrison on the extension), and a sad in-person meeting between mother and son where she wipes down their fingerprints in a hotel room while he dons a disguise.

And after allegations emerge by two women in Sweden of sexual assault, Assange cracks a tasteless half-joke about how the charges elevated his profile: a sex scandal every six months is the way its a platform. Assange muses about a lesbian nightclub and radical feminist conspiracies while being coached by a frustrated lawyer on how to talk about the allegations to the press.

There are the rock-star moments: more than a half-dozen people fawning appreciatively as Assange gets a haircut; a bizarre interview with Lady Gaga, during which Assange says not without irony lets not pretend for a minute that Im a normal person.

The narrative unravels somewhat (and Poitras loses some credibility) after Jacob Appelbaum with whom Poitras admits to having a brief relationship is accused of sexual misconduct and forced to leave the non-profit where he works. When asked to be interviewed for the film Appelbaum declined, saying he wanted the film to have a different ending. So do I, says the filmmaker.

Its an amazing insiders look at the WikiLeaks founder, who remains holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Unlikeable and narcissistic as he appears, Assange is still a prime example of how flawed people can accomplish important things, and Poitrass free access to Assange makes her documentary an important piece of filmmaking.

See the original post:
Documentary captures tumultuous life of Julian Assange - North Shore News

Tomi Lahren fires back at ‘liberal media’ after criticism over benefiting from Obamacare – AOL

Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren admitted during a Obamacare debate last weekend with avowed liberal Chelsea Handler that she gets insurance through her parents, a revelation that drew great deal of attention.

In an op-ed published by The Hill on Wednesday, Lahren responds to the criticism by slamming the 'liberal media.'

She expresses despair over the Washington Post's assertion that she, "bashes Obamacare while benefiting from it," commenting, "Leave it to the mainstream media to ruin an otherwise pleasant morning."

Click through images of Tomi Lahren on Instagram:

29 PHOTOS

Tomi Lahren on Instagram

See Gallery

My dog might be a chihuahua but don't get it twisted, she's American AF. #TeamTomi #merica #chihuahuasofinstagram #Kota

Amidst all the craziness and BS going on right now, remember it's Police Week and we owe our LEOs a whole helluva lot. Here's to you! #TeamTomi #policeweek #leos #bluelivesmatter

Ya know just laying here on my President Trump blanket being American AF... new Final Thoughts on traitor Chelsea Bradley Manning posted now on my official FB page. #TeamTomi #MAGA #merica #Trump

"When you live without fear, it don't get much better." #TeamTomi #Fearless #godblessamerica

Sick of winning yet? Me either. #MAGA #TeamTomi #Trump

Hey Dallas, who's ready to go Off The Rails this weekend?! I'll be there and I have a helluva lot to celebrate! (Settled the lawsuit). Who's joining me at @offtherailsdfw this weekend?! Here's to freedom, friends, and country music! #TeamTomi #otr2017 #Dallas

Oh San Diego why did I ever leave you? But your taxes are oh so high and your regulations are bullshit...but this scenery is hard to beat. #TeamTomi #sandiego #beach #pacificbeach

Good Vibes Only! Even in the courtroom. #TeamTomi #goodvibesonly #smile #onwardandupward

Rescued is my favorite breed. My childhood dog Baxter went to heaven yesterday but thankfully I've still got Kota. If you're thinking about adding a dog to the family, consider a rescue. It'll change your life too. #TeamTomi #rescuedog #rescuedogsofinstagram

Oh hey I have some Final Thoughts posted NOW on my official and only Facebook page. All message, no fluff. See y'all on good ole Facebook! #TeamTomi #imback #finalthoughts #MAGA

I'll be crashing safe spaces tonight at ECU. Just remember, free speech isn't just saying what you want to say, it's hearing what you don't want to hear. Trigger warning in advance. #TeamTomi #TomiatECU #freespeech #ECU #TPUSA

Here's to big bombs, big tents, big plans and Making America Great Again! Here's to a new breed of conservative, a fresh outlook on politics and no BS. Here's to the end of the appeasement, apology and inaction tour. Here's to 45-on time and under budget. #TeamTomi #MAGA #united4trump #PresidentTrump #moab

Excited to announce @bulletsandbombshells will be setting up Team Tomi Central at this year's @turningpointusa Young Women's Leadership Summit in Dallas! Come out and get some Tomi gear while you listen to conservative ladies dominate the stage! See y'all in June! It's gonna be YUGE! #TeamTomi #YWLS #turningpoint #Dallas #conservativewomen

Fate whispers to the warrior, "you cannot withstand the storm" and the warrior whispers back, "I am the storm." #TeamTomi #igotthis #texassky

Making Spring Great Again! New pastel MAGA caps! Get em here: #united4trump #TeamTomi #MAGA #USA #springfashion

Goodbye for now NYC! It's been quite the adventure. Back to Dallas! #TeamTomi #NYC #adventurethatislife

#ThankYouMaddow that was a big league jackass moment in your career! New Final Thoughts posted now. #TeamTomi #MAGA #trumptaxes #liberaltears

Did you miss the debut of The Snowflake Awards? Don't worry because they are streaming on my official FB page NOW! This extended edition includes our bloopers because unlike Snowflakes, we can laugh at ourselves! The Snowflake Awards was established to honor notable hypersensitive citizens, those who, when subjected to the slightest pressures of life, begin to melt! For too long the entertaining societal contributions of these delicate celebrities were overlooked! Sadly, we were content to take them seriously instead of recognizing their greatest gift; a never-ending goldmine of mock-able material that helps us realize how wonderful our lives are! No more. @docthompsonshow and I take on pop culture elitism and hypocrisy like youve never seen before! Visit https://dnc-trophy.myshopify.com/collections/all to get your commemorative Snowflake Awards tshirt! #TeamTomi #TheFlakies #snowflakes #SnowflakeAwards

After last night's speech it's safe to say OUR President Trump is indeed Making America Great Again. The radical notion Americans come first in our own damn country (established November 8th, 2016). I'll be on with @seanhannity tonight to discuss the speech! P.S. The hat is from @drunkamerica and it's my new favorite! #TeamTomi #godblessamerica #drunkAmerica

Will be signing this bad boy for auction after tonight's @allenamericans @rapidcityrush game! Proceeds to benefit Folds of America-the mission: provide educational scholarships to the spouses and children of America's fallen and disabled service-members. #TeamTomi #AllenAmericans #foldsofAmerica #honorthem #godblessamerica #hockey

That crazy and radical notion Americans and American safety take priority over feelings. #TeamTomi #AmericaFirst #AboutTime #mark19apparel

Life goes on and while it does, our brave men and women are overseas making a sacrifice so we don't have to. Remember Everyone Deployed. These kickass leggings are made by veteran owned and operated @mark19apparel #TeamTomi #RED #supportthetroops #Mark19 #leggingsarepants

We lost some fantastic and admirable celebrities in 2016 but what about our LEOs, first responders and service members? They sacrificed for us, for our country, our safety and our freedom. Here's to them. Home of the free because of the brave. #TeamTomi #backtheblue #godblessamerica #brookeandarrow #hartsandpearls #MAGA #USA #Merica

They call me "savage" but you can call me whatever you like. Just know I'm fearless, fiercely patriotic, and I don't back down. New Final Thoughts posted. #TeamTomi #fearless #bulletsandbombshells #tacticalshit

Don't forget to catch me with @trevornoah on @comedycentral @thedailyshow at 11pmET tonight!! #TeamTomi #DailyShow #trevornoah #NYC #latenightthoughts #comedycentral

It was "Bring your Favorite Sign to Work Day" here @theblazetv and I thought maybe considering last night, this one would do. My Victory Final Thoughts are posted now! "We said 'screw your way, we're gonna do it our way.'" #TeamTomi #MAGA #PresidentTrump #AmericaFirst #election2016 #finalthoughts

I stand by Don because he doesn't back down. I respect that. Wouldn't it be nice if America stopped backing down and started doubling down like DJT? Sorry, I'm not the type of woman to sit in the corner and cry over spilled milk and the "p" word. Final thoughts on #trumptapes posted now. #TeamTomi #MAGA #standup #election2016 #neverhillary

Rocking that @hartsandpearls red, white, and blue headband! Some extra love for Old Glory today just to remind Hillary that the deplorables have left her basket and we ready to take November! #TeamTomi #hartsandpearls #camo #redwhiteandblue #maga

HIDE CAPTION

SHOW CAPTION

Lahren goes on to admit that she does, indeed, gain from the health care law but takes umbrage with the overall assumption that the bulk of Trump supporters and Republicans, "believe that every single tenet of ObamaCare is bad."

She supports that statement with Kaiser Family Foundation poll results showing that the majority of Republicans do approve of the provisions involving protections for pre-existing conditions and "allowing young adults to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26."

Lahren then comments, "But facts won't get in the way of the media's liberal crusade."

During Politicon Saturday, Lahren and Handler touched upon a number of divisive matters, including transgender members of the military and health care. While discussing the latter, 24-year-old Lahren admitted that she is still on her parents' plan, eliciting jeers from the audience.

Handler came to her defense, telling the crowd, "Stop, stop, stop, she's being honest."

Lahren later told Fox News that she found their exchange "civil" and said she, "would do it again in a heartbeat."

In her op-ed for The Hill, Lahren further noted, "my debate with Chelsea was an important step for free speech, which has been under assault from liberal snowflakes for years on America's college campuses. Our sit-down proves a respectful dialogue between people with whom we disagree is still possible and should be encouraged by both sides."

Go here to see the original:
Tomi Lahren fires back at 'liberal media' after criticism over benefiting from Obamacare - AOL

Obama’s ‘War on Leakers’ Was More Aggressive Than Trump’s So Far – Newsweek

The U.S. Justice Department has significantly ramped up its number of leak investigations, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday, more than tripling themcompared with the past three years numbers combined.

Thestatement likely came much to the glee of President Donald Trump. But it was his predecessor, Barack Obama, who charted a course for Trump when it came to leak crackdowns.

Perhaps answering his bosss cries for investigations, Sessions said that at least four people, three of whose cases had not been reported on as of Friday, have already been charged with unlawfully disclosing classified material or with concealing contacts with foreign intelligence officers. He also said the Justice Departmenthad seen a boom in criminal referrals for probes into intelligence agency leaks.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Referrals for investigations of classified leaks to the Department of Justice from our intelligence agencies have exploded, Sessions said. In the first six months of this administration, DOJ has already received nearly as many criminal referrals involving unauthorized disclosures of classified information as we received in the last three years combined.

To date, only Reality Winner, a 25-year-old federal government contractor accused ofleaking classified information to The Intercept, is known to be facing prosecution. Her trial is set to begin in October.

Sessionss DOJ still has to play catch-up to reach the number of leak investigations from Obamas time.

DOJ prosecutors under the Obama administration pursued nine leak cases, and in May 2013 it was disclosed that federal investigators had surreptitiously seized two months worth of phones records from Associated Press reporters and editors, including home phones and cellphones, The New York Times reported.

Later in 2013, a scathing report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)said the Obama administrations war on leaks had been the worst of its kind since the days of Richard Nixon, who engaged in a cover-up that eventually led to his resignation in 1974.

At the time of the CPJs report, Obamas team had used the Espionage Act, passed in 1917, to kick-start eight prosecutions involving allegations of leakedclassified information, including those against Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Manning was later granted clemency by Obama, before he left office earlier this year, while Snowden remains in exile in Russia.

Though CPJs report did show that the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington set off a major expansion of information deemed to be classifiedstarting with the administration of President George W. BushObamas eight prosecutions far outranked the three Espionage Act prosecutions under every other president before him.

In May 2016, Obama said that many of the cases prosecuted during his time in office actually were holdovers, but according to Politico that proved to be untrue.

Many of the cases that are often lumped into, you know, my ledger, essentially were cases that were brought before we came into office, Obama said to a college newspaper. Some of them are serious, where you had purposeful leaks of information that could harm or threaten operations or individuals who were in the field involved with really sensitive national security issues.

Politico found that of the eight cases, three were from the Bush administration that preceded Obama.

One of those cases involved New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, who in 2005 revealed the National Security Agencys domestic and clandestine surveillance program. Risen also wrote about a CIA operation to disrupt Irans nuclear program in a book published in 2006. Under Obama, the DOJ and Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to force Risen to testify and reveal his source of the classified information.

In December, Risen penned an op-ed forthe Times,and its closing paragraph now seems almost prophetic: Press freedom advocates already fear that under Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trumps choice to be attorney general, the Justice Department will pursue journalists and their sources at least as aggressively as Mr. Obama did.

The rest is here:
Obama's 'War on Leakers' Was More Aggressive Than Trump's So Far - Newsweek

More political headbanging on encryption threatens privacy – TechCrunch

The UKs Home Secretary has yet again cranked up the pressure on messaging giants over use of end-to-end encryption to secure communications sent via popular services like WhatsApp implying she would prefer tech companies voluntarily re-engineer their security systems so that decrypted data can be handed over to terror-fighting intelligence agencies on demand.

Writing in a paywalled opinion article, published in theTelegraphyesterday, Rudd wheels out the now familiar political refrain that use of e2e encryption is hampering intelligence and law enforcement agencies, before going on to apply such twisted logic its hard not to conclude shes deploying some kind of proprietary crypto of her own, i.e. which scrambles words into incomprehensible nonsense enabling her to claim to support and value strong encryption whilst simultaneously calling for tech giants to work with her to undermine encrypted communications.

To be very clear the government supports strong encryption and has no intention of banning end-to-end encryption. But the inability to gain access to encrypted data in specific and targeted instances even with a warrant signed by a Secretary of State and a senior judge is right now severely limiting our agencies ability to stop terrorist attacks and bring criminals to justice, she writes, before going on to suggest that:

1) real people (whoever they are) arent interested in ensuring the privacy of their communications;

2) e2e encryption can be compromised without the need for a backdoor;

Quoth Rudd:

I know some will argue that its impossible to have both that if a system is end-to-end encrypted then its impossible ever to access the communication. That might be true in theory. But the reality is different. Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so called back doors.

Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and usability, and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie.

So, there are options. But they rely on mature conversations between the tech companies and the government and they must be confidential. The key point is that this is not about compromising wider security. It is about working together so we can find a way for our intelligence services, in very specific circumstances, to get more information on what serious criminals and terrorists are doing online.

It really is not clear what reality Rudd occupies when she writes that e2e encryption is only e2e encryption in theory. Unless she intends to imply that a security system could, in fact, contain a backdoor which enables access to decrypted data in which case it would not be e2e encryption (yet she also specifically claims shes not asking companies to break encryption or create so called back doors so theres plenty to scratch your head about here).

Asked for thoughts on Rudds comments on encryption, WhatsApp parent Facebook declined to comment. And, frankly, who can blame it? When a message is so knotted with bizarre claims, contradictions and logical fallacies the only sensible response is to stay silent.

On the one hand Rudd is saying that billions of people use WhatsApp because its incredibly user-friendly, while at the same time claiming that robust security is too difficult for real people to use. (Historically she may have had a point yet, today, billions of real WhatsApp users are sending billions of e2e encrypted messages, each and every day, and apparently not finding this task overly arduous.)

It appears that the Home Secretarys greatest fear is software that is both secure AND usable. How sad, said security research Alec Muffett, a former Facebook employee who worked on deploying e2e crypto for its Secret Conversations feature, when asked for his thoughts on Rudds comments.

If you aim for a really cynical interpretation, you could say that Rudd is only saying shes not askingcompanies to stop using e2e encryption; i.e. shes implying they voluntarily dont need to use e2e because real people arent bothered about the privacy of their comms anyway ergo, tech giants are free to ditch those pesky e2e crypto systems that so annoy governments without suffering any backlash from users (and crucially from her PoV without the government being accused of literally banning encryption).

The phrase trade-offs between security and usability is an interesting one for her to choose, though. It brings to mind a specific security controversy pertaining to WhatsApps platform earlier this year, afterThe Guardianreported claims by a security researcher that hed identified a backdoor in WhatsApps crypto a claim WhatsAppvigorously denied. (The claim was also junked bya very long list of security researchers, and The Guardian went on to amend its story to remove the word backdoor before ultimately publishing a review of the original, in its words, flawed reporting.)

The retransmission vulnerability the Guardians report had couched as a backdoor was in fact a design decision, said WhatsApp, which explained that it prioritizes message reliability for its very large user-base, meaning it will still deliver a message when a key has changed offering the option for users to turn on a specific security notification to alert them to a potential risk of their communications having been compromised.

The design decision referenced in The Guardian story prevents millions of messages from being lost, and WhatsApp offers people security notifications to alert them to potential security risks, it said in a statement at the time.

How WhatsApp handles keyretransmission was described as a small and unlikely threat, by academic Zeynep Tufekci, who organized anopen letter denouncing the Guardians original report. The letter, addressed to the newspaper, asserted: The behavior you highlight is a measured tradeoff that poses a remote threat in return for real benefits that help keep users secure.

Its possible that Rudd, and/or the intelligence and law enforcement agencies she liaises with, has picked up on these sorts of usability vs security trade-off discussions, and is viewing design decisions that prioritize things like reliability ahead of perfect, unbreakable security, as she puts it, as offering a potential route for enacting some kind of targeted and limited interception, i.e. even when a platform has otherwise deployed strong encryption.

Albeit, Rudd is also saying the options she spies to get more information on what serious criminals and terrorists are doing online nonetheless rely on mature conversations between the tech companies and the government hence repeating her call for both sides to work together.

Confidentiality ensures there will be no public discussion about what exactly tech giants and governments might be agreeing to do, collectively and individually, to harvest the online activity of particular targets although the risk for messaging platforms that sell services as strongly encrypted (and therefore give users an expectation of robust privacy), is every time these companies are seen to meet with government representatives their users might feel moved to wonder about the substance of their behind-closed-doors discussions. Which risks undermining user trust in their claims.

Asked for thoughts on what options Rudd might be trying to articulate here, Eerke Boiten, a cyber security professor at De Montfort University, told TechCrunch:With usabililty vs security trade-offs she has once again picked up a meaningful phrase and applied it out of context. WhatsApp end-to-end encryption is a usability success story, as its users barely notice it while gaining some level of security. Some level only as Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook pointed out to UK government recently, by saying that WhatsApp communications metadata (who talks to whom, and when) can still be shared, and is likely still extremely useful for law enforcement.

[Rudd] is publicly putting pressure on [Internet giants], possibly encouraged by how China managed to get Apple to stop offering VPN apps. Getting them to comply via legal means would be slow and invisible to the public eye, so this works much better, he added.

Meanwhile, Rudd has another agenda that is at least far more explicit: Getting tech giants to speed up takedowns of terrorist propaganda thats being publicly spread via their platforms.

And you could argue that applying political pressure over use of encryption is a way to grease the pipe of compliance for the related online extremism takedowns issue.

The Home Secretary, who has been suggested as a potential successor to the current (embattled) UK Prime Minister, is certainly taking full advantage of the PR opportunities to raise her own profile as she tours tech giants HQs in Silicon Valley this week.

Heres Rudd standing in front of a giant Google logo at the companys Mountain View HQ where she went to discuss what can be done to reduce the availability of online terrorist content

And here she is getting a selfie with Facebooks Sheryl Sandberg who she was meeting to discuss threat from terrorist use of the Internet

And heres a photo of the Home Secretary in talks with a couple of unidentified Twitter staffers to hear progress made to tackle terrorist content online and discuss further action needed. (Presumably Jack was too busy for a photo call.)

Rudd has also vlogged about her intent to get tech companies to take action together to stop terrorists spreading extremist propaganda online.

This Home Office PR blitz is notable in not making explicit mention of e2e encryption. Rudd has apparently left that political push to the pages of a lesser read UK newspaper. Which feeds the idea shes playing a few propaganda games of her own here.

While the bundling of the two political concerns (private terrorist/criminal comms; and public online extremism content) allows the government to obfuscate outcomes, spread blame and spin failures.

On the flip side, tech giants have been spinning up their own PR machines ahead of todays debut workshop of the newly formedGlobal Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The initiative wasannouncedin late June by Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to as they put it help us continue to make our hosted consumer services hostile to terrorists and violent extremists, specifically by sharing information and best practices with each other, government and NGOs. Other tech companies have since signed up.

GIFCT is of course a way for tech firms to share the burden and if you want to be cynical, spread the blame of responding to growing political pressure over online extremismwhich affects them all, albeit to greater and lesser degrees.

Facebook, Googleand Twitterhave all published the same blog post about the first meeting of the forum, in which they describe their joint mission, set out strategies and list a few near-term aims.

tl;dr no one can accuse Silicon Valley of doing nothing about online extremism now.

They write:

At Tuesdays meeting we will be formalizing our goals for collaboration and identifying with smaller companies specific areas of support needed as part of the GIFCTs workplan. Our mission is to substantially disrupt terrorists ability to use the Internet in furthering their causes, while also respecting human rights. This disruption includes addressing the promotion of terrorism, dissemination of propaganda, and the exploitation of real-world terrorist events through online platforms. To achieve this, we will join forces around three strategies:

In the next several months, we also aim to achieve the following:

We believe that the best approach to tackling online terrorism is to collaborate with each other and with others outside the private sector, including civil society and government. We look forward to further cooperation as we develop a joint strategic plan over time.

Also today, Google has a separateupdate on measures its applying on YouTube to fight against online terrorism having faced a backlash from advertisers earlier this year the company arguably has even more reason to be seen to be taking action, and for those actions to be effective at stemming the loss of ad dollars.

Read the original post:
More political headbanging on encryption threatens privacy - TechCrunch

Going Dark: Is a confrontation over encryption looming in 2015? – American Enterprise Institute

Will 2015 be the year we see a major showdown over encryption? Earlier this week, my colleague, Ariel Rabkin, penned a trenchant critique of proposals by Prime Minister David Cameron to crackvarious encryption methods increasingly employed by US tech firms. Rabkin is confident that the US political class seems more responsiblethan that of the UK, and that they will not follow Camerons bad example. As someone still wrestling with the shifting balance between security and liberty, I have a good deal of sympathy forRabkins discomfort. However, I suspect this issue will prove to be more complicated than Rabkin suggested. In this blog, I would like to add a few additional dimensions and perspectives about the prospects of going darkwith encryption and the forces at play here.

First, Camerons push must be analyzed against the background of a rapidly changing political and security environment, both in the US and around the world. I have commented several times that the pendulum seemed to be shifting toward prioritizing civil liberty over security, as evidenced by proposals and actions by both the Obama administration and Congress. Anotable high point being an amendment banning all forms of backdoor malware passing the US House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, last spring.

Today, after events in Paris, Belgium, and across Europe, the Sony debacle, the heightened fears of future attacks by cyber-savvy Islamic terrorists, along with the earlier beheading of journalists and the rise of ISIS, the security/liberty balance is shifting rapidly back toward security. Cameron is certainly not alone is his call for action against plans by Apple, Google, Facebook, WhatsApp and Snapchat to introduce impenetrable encryption in their products and services. While the prime minister may be spearheading this effort, it is also true that he is responding to urgent demands by his security agencies, MI5 and GCHQ. Not far behind, the French government is putting together a package of new cybersecurity proposals, with rumors that it, too, will act to head off going darkby telecoms and Internet companies. Beyond governments, publications such as the Economist (hardly a bastion of hawkish sentiment) have called on tech firms to desist from claiming that their realm is so distinct and inviolate that it can imperil others lives(I)t is far better to agree to some form of standard now, rather than wait for an atrocity plotted behind impenetrable walls to be unleashed.

Despite Rabkins hope, I also suspect that the American political class,however defined, will respond to recent events by shifting toward support of more stringent security measures. We have already seen Attorney General Eric Holder make common cause with FBI Director James Comey, blasting Apple and Google for placing themselves beyond the law and aiding and abetting terrorists and child molesters. And while Cameron failed to get ringing support in these issues while stateside last week, President Obama has signaled that he could well be moving toward backing Holder and Comey, stating that, [i]f we get into a situation in which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that were confident is a terrorist despite having a phone number, or despite having a social media address or email address that we cant penetrate that, thats a problem.

While it is too early to see specific legislation, Congress on its own and certainly if the administration recommends it will likely take up the matter and update the existing legal framework that mandates that companies provide means for government officials to carry out wiretap orders to cover email and other Internet content. All of this will set the stage for major conflict with civil libertarians and high tech companies. When asked to respond to Camerons demands, Apple referred reporters to a previous statement by CEO Tim Cook: If law enforcement wants something, they should go to the user and get it. Its not for me to do it. Were not Big Brother.

All this said, I agree that there are monumental problems associated with combatting encryption. As Rabkin notes, given the structure of the Internet and the growing market for encryption technologies, attempts to block the new security measures may well end up as the proverbial Dutch boys finger in the dyke. Mandated backdoors will likely increase insecurity as they cannot be cabined just to government officials. And how do companies respond to authoritarian governments (read: China) who will demand equal access?

It is hard to know how all of this will play out. But my money is on an outcome wheregovernments and their cybersecurity agencies will not be deterred from trying to thwart products and services from going dark.

This post was originally published on TechPolicyDaily.

Read the original post:
Going Dark: Is a confrontation over encryption looming in 2015? - American Enterprise Institute

Letter to Prime Minister Turnbull re Encryption and Human Rights – Human Rights Watch (press release)

August 3, 2017 Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP Prime Minister Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Re: Encryption and Human Rights

Dear Prime Minister Turnbull,

We write to urge you to support the use of strong encryption as essential to security and human rights in the digital age. We call on you to refrain from forcing technology companies to weaken the security of their products or banning the use of end-to-end encryption.

In a July 14 press conference on national security and encryption, you discussed challenges that Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies faced in accessing encrypted data or communications, even with a lawful court order. You announced your intention to introduce legislation that will in particular impose an obligation upon device manufacturers and upon service providers to provide appropriate assistance to intelligence and law enforcement on a warranted basis, to access data in unencrypted form. While the conference released few details, you stated that the legislation would be modelled on the United Kingdoms Investigatory Powers Act and that you will seek a coordinated approach with international partners, including the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

Governments have a human rights obligation to investigate and prosecute crime and thwart terrorist attacks. However, any policy response should not do more harm than good, while also be effective at achieving its aim. Forcing companies to weaken encryption or effectively forbidding the use of end-to-end encryption fails on both counts, and would undermine human rights worldwide.

Strong encryption is the cornerstone of cybersecurity in the digital age. Todays cybercriminals are increasingly sophisticated, targeting Internet companies, credit card and identity data, critical infrastructure, and even nation-state intelligence agencies.[1] Strong encryption built into private sector technology protects the dataand the human rights and securityof billions of Internet users worldwide against these growing security threats. You yourself have acknowledged that you use encrypted applications like Wickr and WhatsApp because traditional communication methods are not secure.[2]

Weakening encryption for any purpose effectively weakens it for every purpose, including malicious hacking, financial fraud, and for other illicit purposes. And unfortunately, weak or partial encryption provides not just weak or partial protection, but no protection at all against sophisticated repressive regimes and capable criminals. Some companies that manufacture encrypted apps or devices do not have the ability to disclose conversations or data to law enforcement because that information is encrypted end-to-end and companies do not have the decryption keys. A requirement of assured decryptability for all data would force such companies to redesign their products without security features like end-to-end encryption or to introduce deliberate vulnerabilities, or back doors, into their software.

The overwhelming consensus of information security experts, along with some former Five Eyes intelligence officials, is that there is no technical solution that would allow specific law enforcement agencies to decrypt communications without creating vulnerabilities that would expose all users to harm.[3] Europol has also warned that solutions that intentionally weaken technical protection mechanisms to support law enforcement will intrinsically weaken the protection against criminals as well.[4] Determined cybercriminals and rival foreign intelligence agencies will find and exploit such back doors, for profit or abuse. This would undermine cybersecurity for all users, including billions that are under no suspicion of wrongdoing.

For human rights defenders and journalists, the harm can be even more serious. Activists and media organizations with whom we work in places like Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand, and across the Middle East rely on encryption built into phones and chat applications to protect sources and victims from reprisals. In 2015, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye, recognized that encryption enables the exercise of freedom of expression, privacy, and a range of other rights in the digital age.[5] Countries like Russia, China, and Turkey need no encouragement, they are already blurring the line between human rights activism and terrorism in order to justify surveillance and repression of human rights activists.

While strong encryption may limit some existing surveillance capabilities, weakening such security features will only increase the vulnerability of billions of ordinary people to cybercrime, identify theft, and malicious hacking. Such harm would be broadly disproportionate to any gains in law enforcement capabilities that undermining encryption would achieve.

It is also unlikely that limiting strong encryption in Australiaor even in all Five Eyes countries would prevent bad actors from using it. As a recent global survey of encryption products confirms, terrorists and criminals could easily shift to the many available foreign alternatives that would not be subject to Australian law.[6]

Technology companies face an escalating digital arms race to secure their software and devices against cybercriminals, and encryption is a key part of their arsenal. Instead of hindering efforts to protect ordinary users, we urge your government to invest in modernizing investigation techniques and increasing resources and training in tools already at their disposal, consistent with human rights requirements.[7] For example, any limitations encryption poses to police capabilities are greatly offset by the explosion of new kinds of investigatory material enabled by the digital world, including location information and vast stores of metadata that are not encrypted. And encrypted data can often be accessed in unencrypted form through cloud-based backups or by directly accessing it on devices with hacking or forensic tools. Of course, these alternative approaches should also be necessary and proportionate to legitimate security goals, regulated in public law, and subject to strict safeguards to ensure respect for privacy and other rights.

Australias approach to encryption will be emulated by other countries facing similar challenges. Your government can demonstrate true leadership by adapting to a world with strong encryption instead of fighting the gains the private sector has made in shoring up security and human rights in the digital age.

Sincerely,

Elaine Pearson Australia Director

Cynthia Wong Senior Internet Researcher

CC:

Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC, Attorney-General

Mr. Michael Phelan APM, Acting Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

[1] See, for example, Sam Thielman, "Yahoo hack: 1bn accounts compromised by biggest data breach in history," The Guardian, December 15, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/yahoo-hack-security-o... (accessed August 2, 2017); Nicole Perlroth & David Sanger, "Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.s Hold on Cyberweapons," New York Times, June 28, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/28/technology/ransomware-nsa-hacking-too... (accessed August 2, 2017).

[2] Eliza Borrello, "Malcolm Turnbull confirms he uses Wickr, WhatsApp instead of unsecure SMS technology," ABC News, March 2, 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/malcolm-turnbull-uses-secret-messa... (accessed August 2, 2017).

[3] Nicole Perlroth, "Security Experts Oppose Government Access to Encrypted Communication," New York Times, July 7, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/technology/code-specialists-oppose-us... (accessed August 2, 2017); Mike McConnell, Michael Chertoff and William Lynn, Why the fear over ubiquitous data encryption is overblown, July 28, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-need-for-ubiquitous-data-enc... (accessed August 2, 2017); John Leyden, "Former GCHQ boss backs end-to-end encryption," The Register, July 10, 2017, https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/10/former_gchq_wades_into_encrypti... (accessed August 2, 2017).

[4] Europol and ENISA joint statement, "On lawful criminal investigation that respects 21st Century data protection," May 20, 2016, https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-position-papers-and-opini... (accessed August 2, 2017).

[5] UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, A/HRC/29/32, May 22, 2015, http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/29/32 (accessed August 2, 2017).

[6] B. Schneier, K. Seidel, and S. Vijayakumar, A Worldwide Survey of Encryption Products, February 11, 2016, https://www.schneier.com/academic/archives/2016/02/a_worldwide_survey_o.... (accessed August 2, 2017).

[7] Orin Kerr and Bruce Schneier, Encryption Workarounds, March 20, 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2938033 (accessed August 2, 2017).

Read the rest here:
Letter to Prime Minister Turnbull re Encryption and Human Rights - Human Rights Watch (press release)

Why Rudd is wrong about online encryption – The Times

August 4 2017, 12:00am,The Times

Edward Lucas

Giving the state access to encrypted phones wont stop terrorist attacks and would weaken security for the rest of us

Encryption is one of the words that make most readers hurriedly turn the page. Yet if you ever use a plastic payment card, you benefit from it. If you ever let your personal details be stored on someone elses database, you rely on it. If you ever use a password on your computer, you use it. Contrary to the home secretarys assertion this week that strong encryption is not a priority for real people, these are applications that real people depend on.

Most people, perhaps even Amber Rudd, do not understand the maths behind encryption. But its effects are simple enough. The internet, a deeply insecure computer network, has become the central nervous system of modern civilisation. Encryption gives us the best chance of protecting

Read more from the original source:
Why Rudd is wrong about online encryption - The Times