WikiLeaks Cable Reveals US Oil Interests in Venezuela – teleSUR English

WikiLeaks has published a declassified 1978 U.S. diplomatic cable revealing U.S. interest in Venezuelan oil.

WikiLeaks has published an excerpt of a 1988 declassified cable between the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Caracas highlighting the United States' longstanding interests in Venezuela.

RELATED: Tillerson Threatens Regime Change in Venezuela

The cable, titled "U.S. Goals, Objectives and Resource Management for Venezuela," outlines that the main goal of U.S.-Venezuela relations is to ensure that "Venezuela continues to supply a significant portion of our petroleum imports and continue to follow a moderate and responsible oil price position in OPEC."

The release of the declassified document comes a day after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned of "regime change" in Venezuela.

We are evaluating all of our policy options as to what can we do to create a change of conditions where either Maduro decides he doesnt have a future and wants to leave of his own accord or we can return the government processes back to their constitution, Tillerson told a press conference.

Tillerson is the former CEO of oil giant ExxonMobile, raising suspicion his position on Venezuela has been influenced by oil interests.

President Maduro has attacked the recent sanctions are an "imperialist attack" against Venezuela.

Cuba likewise described U.S. actions as "an international plot to suppress the will of the Venezuelan people."

Link:
WikiLeaks Cable Reveals US Oil Interests in Venezuela - teleSUR English

FBI Report Shows It Was Seth Rich Not Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to Wikileaks – Center for Research on Globalization

Weve noted for many months that the DNC emails wereleaked by an insider,nothacked by the Russians.

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh who revealed in 1974 that the CIA was spying on Americans, who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandal said in a recent phone interviewlinkedby WikiLeaks:

[The DC police took Seth Richs computer, but couldnt get past his password.] So they call the FBI cyber unit.

***

The Feds get through [the password-protection on Richs computer], and this is what they find. This is accoring to the FBI report.

***

What the report says is thatsome time in late spring or early summer he [Rich] makescontact with WikiLeaks. Thats in his computer.

***

They [the FBI] found what he [Rich] had done was he had submitted a series of documents of emails, of juicy emails from the DNC.

By the way, all this shit about the DNC, where the hack, it wasnt hacked

He offereda sample, an extensive sample, Im sure dozens of emails, andsaid I want money. [Remember, WikiLeaks often pays whistleblowers.]

Later, WikiLeaksdidget the password. He [Rich] had a dropbox, a protecteddropbox, which isnt hard to do.

***

They got access to the dropbox. Thats in the FBI report.

He [Rich] also let people know with whom he was dealing the word was passed, according to the FBI report, I also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, its not going to solve your problem.

***

But WikiLeaks got access, before he was killed.

***

I have a narrative of how that whole fucking thing began. Its a [former CIA director John]Brennan operation. It was an American disinformation [campaign].

More here:
FBI Report Shows It Was Seth Rich Not Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to Wikileaks - Center for Research on Globalization

Risk spotlights the charmless demeanour of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – Straight.com

A documentary by Laura Poitras. Rated PG

Its hard to know what to make of this. A very haphazard follow-up of sorts to director Laura Poitrass Oscar-winning Edward Snowden doc Citizenfour, which was the third film in a trilogy, Risk arrives as if it has no real place in the world. The filmmaker began this portraitif thats what it isof WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after the release of the Iraq War Logs over six years ago, and just before his claustrophobic asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London following rape allegations made in Sweden. Heavily re-edited after a reportedly more sympathetic cut screened last year at Cannes, it now exists to seemingly spotlight the charmless demeanour of its subject.

In the films most talked-about scene, Assange insists on blaming his predicament on radical feminists, to the unambiguous horror of his lawyer, Helena Kennedy. Later, Assange mirthlessly quips that he could increase his celebrity with more sex scandals. These moments aside, Risk brings an odd lack of focus to Poitrass dour exercise, made no more convincing by her flat voice-over interjections. (I dont think he likes me in the beginning; I dont trust him in the end.)

The director insists that shes made a film about journalism, and to that extent, Assange seems to be at his most sincere when talking about his obsession with the criminality of the global power class. At other times hes vain, stubborn, haughtyor so it appears once Poitras has turned who knows how much footage into a slim 98 minutes. Its easy to forget that were watching a high-profile enemy of the United States whos been cornered inside a tiny building for over half a decade. Who wouldnt be a bit fucking weird?

Most disorienting, if you didnt already know the story, is the demise of colleague Jacob Appelbaum, seen at first in a rousing public confrontation with Egyptian telecom bosses over spying and censorship, later disgraced after another murky round of sex-abuse allegations. That Poitras admits to a relationship with Appelbaum doesnt exactly help. Eventually, a clueless Lady Gaga turns up to frivolously interview Assange, whereupon the entire muddy spectacle hits a cringe-inducing low, probably taking WikiLeaks with it. In Citizenfour, Edward Snowden repeatedly stresses that he doesnt want to become the story. Heres why.

Original post:
Risk spotlights the charmless demeanour of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange - Straight.com

Chelsea Manning’s Gallery Debut to Showcase DNA Self-Portraits She Made in Prison – Out Magazine

Photography: Glenn Garner

For herA Becoming Resemblance exhibition, the trans activist teamed with artistHeather Dewey-Hagborg.

Mon, 2017-07-31 13:38

Chelsea Manning is a hero, a whistleblower, and a trans activist. Now, we can add artist to her list of accomplishments because, in the final two years of her seven-year prison sentence for her involvement with WikiLeaks, she was working on an art project that involved her own DNA.

Related |Chelsea Manning Rides in New York Pride

The result of this years-long project is a series of DNA portraits that Manning created in collaboration with Brooklyn-based artist Heather Dewey-Hagborg. The exhibition, called A Becoming Resemblance, is set to debut on August 2nd at at the Fridman Gallery in Manhattan and will feature 30 3-D printed portraits of Mannings face.

The entire project was made possible thanks to Mannings idea to send samples of her DNA out of prison in the mail. According to the artist, Manning gave to her lawyer envelopes filled with samples of her hair and cheek swabs.While this may have been a new process for Manning, this isnt Dewey-Hagborgs first DNA rodeo. The artist had already created 3-D portraits of strangers through discarded cigarette butts, pieces of gum, and hair found on the streets of New York.

Radical Love, Chelsea Manning (2016) byHeather Dewey-Hagborg

As she waited out her prison sentence, Manning found a voice in the art project at a time when discrimination against her and her gender transition was at its height. "Prisons try very hard to make us inhuman and unreal by denying our image, and thus our existence, to the rest of the world," Manning said in a statement. "Imagery has become a kind of proof of existence. The use of DNA in art provides a cutting edge and a very postmodernalmost 'post-postmodern'analysis of thought, identity, and expression.

Related |Chelsea Manning Opens Up in First Interview Since Release From Prison

When the exhibition opens on August 2nd, it will be historic not only because of Mannings international reputation, but also because it will be the first time the activist will see the portraits shes been giving her DNA to for two years in person, according to Dewey-Hagborg.

A Becoming Resemblance is on show at New York's Fridman Gallery from August 2 to September 5, 2017.

Read this article:
Chelsea Manning's Gallery Debut to Showcase DNA Self-Portraits She Made in Prison - Out Magazine

Another Perspective: Transgender Troops: Trump made the right decision for the military – The Ledger

By Walt Heyer The Daily Signal

On July 26, President Donald Trump tweeted that he wouldnt allow transgender individuals to serve in the military.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump announced. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

I think he made the right decision and as someone who lived as trans-female for several years, I should know.

When I discovered Congress voted last month to not block funding for transgender-related hormone therapies and sex change surgeries, I wondered if it considered how devastating this will be to the fitness, readiness, and morale of our combat-ready troops.

In July, the House of Representatives voted down Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzlers amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have banned the military from funding such treatments.

Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.

Perhaps they have forgotten that our military was forged to be the worlds strongest fighting force, not a government-funded, politically correct, medical sex change clinic for people with gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria, the common diagnosis for one who feels at odds with his or her birth gender, develops from prolonged anxiety and depression. People are not born that way.

The proof for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is having strongly held feelings but feelings can and often do change over time.

The military is expected to prepare its members in warfare: to kill, destroy, and break our enemies. The most important factors in preparing a strong military are not hormone therapy, surgical sex changes, or politically correct education.

We need psychologically fit, emotionally sound, highly trained troops to protect our nation from its enemies.

While countless homeless vets are currently sleeping under cardboard boxes, or waiting for life-saving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, we learn that transgender military recruits now qualify for preferential coverage for sex change procedures that are scientifically unproven and extremely costly.

I myself was fully sex-reassigned from male to female, and eventually came to accept my birth gender.

I have over 70 years of firsthand life experience, eight years of living as a woman, 20 years of researching the topic, and 12 years of helping others who, like me, found that transitioning and reassignment surgery failed to be proper treatment and want to restore their lives to their birth gender.

Transitioning can be expensive up to $130,000 per person for numerous body-mutilating and cosmetic procedures over many months (or years) to fashion the body to appear as the opposite sex.

Yet, no matter how skilled the surgeon, or how much money is spent, it is biologically impossible to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. The change is only cosmetic.

The medical community continues to recommend this radical treatment in the absence of scientific evidence that people are better off in the long run. This population attempts suicide at a rate of 40 percent.

Even after the full surgical change, they attempt to end their lives, or tragically succeed.

Over 60 percent of this diverse population suffer from co-existing mental disorders. Consider Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), a former Army soldier who was so psychologically and emotionally unbalanced that he stole confidential documents from the military and forwarded them to WikiLeaks.

The military should not provide sex change surgery.

Through my website, sexchangeregret.com, I hear from people who experienced firsthand how damaging and unnecessary reassignment surgeries were. For them, the sex change failed to resolve the emotional and psychological disorders that drove the desire to change gender.

Many write after living the transgender life for years. They write to ask for advice on how to reverse the original surgical change and restore their lives to the original birth gender like I did, a process called detransition.

Some service members will come to regret having undergone the surgery and will want to detransition. Where will the military be then? Will the military pay for the sex change reversal procedure, too?

Failed sex change surgeries are not uncommon and will drive up the cost to care for the military transgender population above the projected $3 billion to $4 billion 10-year cost.

Beyond the financial cost, theres the question of the service members military readiness during their transition or detransition, as the process often comes with a great deal of anxiety and emotional instability.

I know of many who have struggled to adapt to the new gender role for years after reassignment surgery.

In my view, as a former trans-female who works every day with regretters, allowing the military to pay for sex change surgeries will make a mockery of the U.S. military.

Advocates are relentless in their pursuit of making others, via the government and insurance companies, cover the cost of sex change procedures.

If the military had been forced to pay, the advocates would have used this as leverage to press every other entity both government and commercial to pay for sex change surgeries as well.

As a person who lived the transgender life for eight years, I can attest that assisting, affirming, or paying for hormone therapies and genital mutilation surgeries would not have strengthened our military. They would only have brought adverse long-term consequences, both for individuals and for our armed forces as a whole.

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker whose website, SexChangeRegret.com, raises public awareness about the effects of gender change. He wrote this for The Daily Signal (dailysignal.com).

Continued here:
Another Perspective: Transgender Troops: Trump made the right decision for the military - The Ledger

Former National Security Agency Deputy Director John Inglis warns on data collection – NEWS.com.au

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor turned whistleblower, said Thursday that he saw both presidential candidates as authoritarian. Photo: Getty Images

A FORMER US security chief, who investigated NSA leaker Edward Snowden, says Australians should be alarmed by unchecked collection of personal information. Picture: HBO

A FORMER leading US security chief, who oversaw the investigation into NSA leaker Edward Snowden, has delivered a shocking warning over the unchecked collection of personal information by the private sector.

In an address to the National Press club today, former Deputy Director of Americans National Security Agency John Inglis said Australians should be more concerned about the collection of their data by private business than by the government.

I think we should never take our eye off the government, make sure we constrain them to the purpose for which they defined. But the private sector is running unchecked in this regard, said Mr Inglis who was with the NSA from 2006 to 2014.

Former Deputy Director of the U.S. National Security Agency John Inglis talks at the National Press Club in Canberra. Picture: AAPSource:AAP

Thats by design, you sign user agreements, you willingly give up the data, but the aggregation of that has stunning consequences. Theres very few secrets about your life, where you have been, what you have done.

Im not suggesting that is used maliciously but its a tremendous capability that can be used for good or evil.

You as a citizen may not care about the commercial efficiencies that drive from having all that information in the hands of someone who can put the right advertisement, the right product in front of you, you may care about your privacy you want greater control on that.

Mr Inglis said limits needed to be put on the actions of private enterprise.

We need to have some discussion about what are the appropriate standards for what

information can being a graded and aggregated and what degree of accountability should be effected upon those who aggregate it?

Edward Snowden leaked classified information from the NSA. Picture: HBOSource:Supplied

Im sure they will occasion a great hue and cry about the suppression of free action, perhaps liberty on the part of corporations. We trying to align the rights of individuals against the rights of groups of individuals. Its not taken in a way that fully addresses the implications of where were in the 21st century.

Is privacy dead? I dont think so. I think you can to some agree, modulate your own behaviour. You dont have to have a Facebook account, you dont need various social media accounts.

But its harder and harder. This is where government can assist. It shouldnt do so in a wet blanket way, but establishing the venue and the dialogue by which we can consider the matter and come to rational conclusions.

Continue reading here:
Former National Security Agency Deputy Director John Inglis warns on data collection - NEWS.com.au

Encryption is for ‘Real People’ – Human Rights Watch

WhatsApp and Facebook messenger icons are seen on an iPhone in Manchester , Britain March 27, 2017.

In a recent op-ed, United Kingdom Home Secretary Amber Rudd argued strong encryption was thwarting the governments ability to monitor terrorists and criminals. Rudd expressed skepticism about the need for end-to-end encryption, reasoning that real people dont prioritize security in their technology. 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? she wrote.

The answer is simple: I do, along with broad swaths of the human rights movement and many other people around the world.

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in 90 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice. We rely heavily on networks of local NGO partners, witnesses, and victims, often located in closed societies where surveillance is pervasive. End-to-end encryption built into apps like WhatsApp shields our communications with these networks from abusive regimes and is a critical tool for ensuring we do not put contacts at risk of reprisal. Simply put, if we cant guarantee the security of our communications, we cant do our work. For that reason, every guide on digital security, including one previously funded by the UK, recommends the use of encrypted apps.

Who else uses end-to-end encryption? The list is long. Peaceful pro-democracy and reform activists in places like Hong Kong, Turkey, Central Africa, and across the Middle East. LGBT people living in countries where their sexual orientation is criminalized. Whistleblowers who reveal governmental or corporate malfeasance. Journalists everywhere trying to protect their sources.

Add to that list diplomats and government officials, including some in the UK parliament and Foreign Office. Or doctors, lawyers, and business people discussing sensitive and confidential information.

However, the home secretarys question itself indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of modern cybersecurity threats and the harms of undermining encryption. It doesnt matter whether WhatsApps 1.2 billion users in 180 countries are using the app out of convenience or concern for security. End-to-end encryption protects all of them students, pensioners, consumers, ordinary tax-paying citizens from cybercriminals and identify thieves. As information security experts, former Five Eyes intelligence officials, and even Europol have warned, any attempt to enable surveillance by compromising encryption will broadly undermine cybersecurity for all users. And the bad guys will simply find other encrypted alternatives that are made outside the UK and not subject to its laws.

The good news: Rudd said the UK government has no intention of banning end-to-end encryption. This is a welcome statement as the government continues to interpret the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act, which contains provisions requiring Internet companies to take undefined practicable steps to provide data in unencrypted form.

But the home secretary then pivots to suggest that tech companies should give them access to unencrypted information anyway by working with governments through confidential conversations. What Rudd ultimately seeks is unclear. By definition, if communications are encrypted end-to-end, companies cannot access them.

Regardless, these conversations cannot happen out of public sight. The real people who make up the public have a right to know if the government has subverted the security of the tools many rely on every day.

More:
Encryption is for 'Real People' - Human Rights Watch

Amber Rudd has got it backwardsencryption is key to defending our civil liberties – Prospect

End-to-end encryption allows journalists to speak to sources, and lawyers to their vulnerable clients. We mustn't let a climate of fear impinge on our right to speak privately by Edward Siddons / August 3, 2017 / Leave a comment

Amber Rudds approach to encryption ignores how many people use it for innocent means. Photo: PA/Prospect composite

Since the gruesome attacks in Westminster and Manchester, end-to-end encryption has become something of a buzzword for the beleaguered government. In a recent article for The Daily Telegraph, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has returned to the fray in the most apocalyptic of terms: The enemy online is fast. They are ruthless. They prey on the vulnerable and disenfranchised. They use the very best of innovation for the most evil of ends. This measure, like all other digital surveillance measures, is a matter of national security. In the seemingly never-ending war of us versus an increasingly amorphous them, civil liberties promise to be the first casualty.

In a confused and confusing piece, Rudd dismisses a blanket ban on encrypted messaging, instead proposing specific, targeted surveillance. Despite her claims to the contrary, such measures would require a backdoor, a hole in the encryption software which government and tech companiesnot to mention hackerswould be able to exploit. Renate Simpson, Chief Executive of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, has characterised Rudds remarks as at best nave, at worst dangerous.

It is great to see that you are enjoying the Prospect website.

You have now reached your allowance of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. Dont worryto get another 7 articles absolutely free, just enter your email address in the box below.

You are in complete control of which 7 articles you choose to read. Register now to enjoy more of the finest writing on politics, economics, literature, the arts, philosophy and science.

When you register, well also send you our free e-bookThe past in perspectivewhich considers how reflecting on the past can give great insight into the present AND well send you our free weekly newsletter. (If you prefer not to receive the newsletter you can unsubscribe at any time).

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party. You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

Read the original here:
Amber Rudd has got it backwardsencryption is key to defending our civil liberties - Prospect

HBO Hack Highlights Importance of Encryption, Data Governance – eSecurity Planet

ByJeff Goldman, Posted August 2, 2017

1.5 TB of data, including unreleased episodes of upcoming shows, was stolen and leaked online.

Hackers recently claimed to have breached HBO's systems and stolen 1.5 TB of data including upcoming episodes of Ballers and Room 104, Entertainment Weekly reports.

In response, HBO stated that an incident had "resulted in the compromise of proprietary information," adding, "We immediately began investigating the incident and are working with law enforcement and outside cyber security firms."

In an email to employees, HBO chairman and CEO Richard Plepler wrote, "I can assure you that senior leadership and our extraordinary technology team, along with outside experts, are working round the clock to protect our collective interests. The efforts across multiple departments have been nothing short of herculean."

Protecting Key Data

AlertSec CEO Ebba Blitz told eSecurity Planet by email that the breach should serve as a clear reminder that hacking isn't limited to financial, health and personal information.

"All information is vulnerable because some hackers are motivated by the thrill of it," Blitz said. "They steal because they can, not because the information always has any real long-term value. All data needs to be protected with encryption."

Gemalto CTO of data protection Jason Hart said by email that broadcasters in particular face a unique threat. "Due to the nature of the industry, hackers have the opportunity to access data as it is transmitted between multiple data centers, and so they require solutions to help encrypt their high value TV transmissions -- without interfering with the audience's viewing experience," he said.

"HBO now joins a list of other Hollywood victims of crime such as Netflix and Sony," Hart added. "This incident is another reminder that broadcasters must invest in fundamental security controls and practices -- encryption, key management and two-factor authentication -- to control access to highly sought-after content and protect it in the event that a breach takes place."

Data Governance

Richard Stiennon, chief strategy officer at Blancco Technology Group, said the HBO breach is a great example of the importance of data governance. "Content producers and all the parties involved in shooting, editing and post-production processing and distribution should be on high alert," he said. "They should immediately review their data governance policies and discover the weak links in protecting their content and shore up their defenses. An information governance policy should take into account where critical content resides at all times."

Still, a recent Thycotic survey of over 400 global business and security executives found that four out of five companies don't know where their sensitive data is located or how to secure it.

And while 80 percent of data breaches involve stolen or weak credentials, 60 percent of companies still don't adequately protect privileged accounts. Two out of three companies don't fully measure whether their disaster recovery will work as planned, and four out of five never measure the success of security training investments.

"It's really astonishing to ... see just how many people are failing at measuring the effectiveness of their cyber security and performance against best practices," Thycotic chief security scientist Joseph Carson said in a statement.

Link:
HBO Hack Highlights Importance of Encryption, Data Governance - eSecurity Planet

UpVote: Turkish regime jails IT trainers in encryption clampdown – Ars Technica UK

Chris McGrath/Getty Images

On UpVote this week we discuss Turkey's deepening crackdown against critics of the Erdogan regime, which recently imprisoned IT trainers who were teaching citizens how to secure their digital communications.

We're joined by Amnesty Internationals tech adviser, Tanya O'Carroll, to work out why the net has widened to include tech experts who help human rights' advocates stay safe in a country that is increasingly and chillingly hostile to freedom of speech, following a failed coup to topple president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2016.

End-to-end encryption isn't only perceived as a threat to oppressive regimes, however. This week, the UK's home secretary Amber Rudd once again pushed tech firms such as Facebook and Google to do more to prevent terrorists from using their services. Rudd claimed "real people" dont care about an app's security. Is she sure about that?

UpVote is a Wired and Ars Technica UK co-production hosted by Rowland Manthorpe and Kelly Fiveash.

This episode was recorded on Wednesday, August 2.

See the article here:
UpVote: Turkish regime jails IT trainers in encryption clampdown - Ars Technica UK