The transparency activist organization Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets) has been formally designated as a criminal hacker group, following the publication of 296 gigabytes of sensitive law enforcement data earlier this summer, known colloquially as BlueLeaks. The description comes from a bulletin circulated to fusion centers around the country in late June by the Department of Homeland Securitys Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The bulletins language mirrors earlier US government descriptions of WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and LulzSec.

A criminal hacker group Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDS) on 19 June 2020 conducted a hack-and-leak operation targeting federal, state, and local law enforcement databases, probably in support of or in response to nationwide protests stemming from the death of George Floyd, the bulletin reads. DDS leaked ten years of data from 200 police departments, fusion centers, and other law enforcement training and support resources around the globe, according to initial media and DHS reporting. DDS previously conducted hack-and-leak activity against the Russian Government.

The document was obtained by Lucy Parsons Lab researcher Brian Waters through an Illinois Freedom of Information Act request with the Cook County Sheriffs Office.

The BlueLeaks data was reportedly provided to Distributed Denial of Secrets by a hacker claiming ties to Anonymous, comprising 10 years of information from more than 200 police departments and fusion centers. The records include police and FBI reports, bulletins, guides, and technical information about surveillance techniques and intelligence gathering. A number of news organizations have used BlueLeaks data to publish stories about law enforcement tactics, including the counter-surveillance methods of Black Lives Matter protesters, a skewed analysis on the antifa threat to law enforcement, and worries about widespread mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic foiling facial recognition algorithms.

From the beginning, DDoSecrets has faced intense difficulties keeping the BlueLeaks material online. In late June, Twitter suspended DDoSecretss account in response to the leaks and mass-blocked hyperlinks to the leaked dataset, making it impossible to share on the platform. It was a remarkably draconian step for a company that has long allowed links to extremist content and active election interference efforts like DCLeaks to remain online. Last month, German authorities seized the DDoSecrets server that hosted the BlueLeaks data, effectively shutting down the organizations online repository of the records. The seizure was made on the request of American authorities.

The bulletins description of a criminal hacker group will only strengthen suspicions that federal law enforcement is building a criminal case against DDoSecrets, particularly combined with the recent server seizures. Emma Best, one of DDoSecretss founders, told The Verge that they absolutely believe the document shows that American authorities are investigating their organization in the same manner as it did WikiLeaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, is charged with conspiring to steal and publish classified Pentagon documents.

Crucially, Best maintains that the group has never been involved in any intrusions to obtain documents and merely publishes files after theyve been obtained by others. Unlike WikiLeaks and Assange, we have no involvement in actual hacks and dont provide material support to hackers, they told The Verge.

It is not illegal to publish classified information in the United States, and most of the BlueLeaks data is marked For Official Use Only rather than classified.

Still, Best maintains that DDoSecrets is simply a publisher devoted to freedom of expression and transparency both at home and abroad. Calling us criminal hackers (while ignoring the numerous facts and evidence that undermines that accusation) gives them the excuse to circumvent the First Amendment, Best told The Verge.

One of the odder claims in the three-page bulletin is an assertion that Distributed Denial of Secrets conducted a similar hack-and-leak operation in 2019 on Russian government personnel. Russian media speculated the incident was a response to Russias hack-and-leak activities targeting the Democratic Party to influence the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election the bulletin reads.

The January 2019 DDoSecrets release referenced in the bulletin, called the Dark Side of the Kremlin, included 175 gigabytes of information some previously released on Russian-language websites about the dealings of the Kremlin, the Russian Orthodox Church, and Russias war in Ukraine. It included a significant amount of hacked material from the Russian Interior Ministry that WikiLeaks refused to release in 2016. According to media reports, the Russian hacking group Shaltai Boltai and other Eastern European hackers were responsible for the materials referenced in the bulletin.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

Go here to read the rest:
Feds are treating BlueLeaks organization as a criminal hacker group, documents show - The Verge

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS One of the worlds greatest free speech supporters and a devoted student in the science of communication told a Steamboat Springs audience that social platforms, the media and the U.S. government are better prepared to face election disruption by the Russians and other cyber soldiers during the 2020 election.

You could say the platforms have now put in place a lot of protections, said professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg School for Communication and co-founder of factcheck.org, a nonpartisan website that searches out inaccuracies in U.S. politics.

Theyre (social platforms) shutting down inauthentic accounts. Theyre increasing the likelihood that you cant buy advertising if youre a foreign national.

Jamieson is known for her diligent work in ensuring the integrity of facts in public discourse. Her much lauded career has been dedicated to promoting public understanding of complex issues.

Jamieson spoke on cyber hacking and the 2020 election during the Seminars at Steamboat on Monday, a nonpartisan nonprofit group that hosts Americas top public policy experts.

Jamieson also expressed support for an earlier Seminars speakers suggestion that the Trump Administration should create a centralized military cyber force to fight espionage.

Jamieson spent much of her talk explaining how Russia used hacking and fake media accounts to influence the 2016 election. Interestingly, she originally didnt believe the Russians influenced the 2016 election, but her scientific study of data eventually led her to author the award-winning book Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President.

Jamieson made it clear that Russia didnt have to cooperate or coordinate with the Trump campaign to influence the election.

All they had to do was read our U.S. media, because our coverage is so tactical that if you read it carefully, you know what states to target and what voters to target and what the needs of the two campaigns are. Once you know that all you have to do is create a message imbalance that could shift votes on the margin, she said.

Jamieson pointed out how Russian-made social media accounts were used to suppress votes, even attracting more Black followers on a fake account than the legitimate Black Lives Matter account. One Russian account even told its duped followers to text a certain number to vote. She showed examples of Russian-made memes that focused on creating fear or memes that played on prejudices.

She also pointed out how the media was manipulated by the Russians who were behind WikiLeaks.

They were overwhelmed by Russian hacked content stolen from the democrats, said Jamieson who pointed out that the media ignored confirmation that Russians were behind the hacking, in part because of the overwhelming news cycle. On that day, Trumps Hollywood Access tape was also leaked, along with hacked emails from Hillary Clintons campaign chair John Podesta. She said the hacked emails were strategically leaked by the Russian-backed Julian Assange week by week to influence the news cycle.

She said the press will try not to repeat those mistakes, citing one award-winning journalist who admitted to failures in their coverage.

I didnt raise the possibility that wed become puppets in Putins shadowy campaign. I chose the byline, she quoted Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times.

When asked how she would balance free speech and fake content on social media, Jamieson fiercely defended the publics right to post and say what they want barring dangerous or egregious content that violates Americas social standards.

We draw boundaries, about what we should be able to see child pornography a clear boundary, shouting fire in a theater a traditional boundary, she said.

But I dont want to trust somebody else to decide what Im gonna hear, said Jamieson. Frankly, Id like to know what theyre saying and thinking, because frankly, Id rather know that and be prepared to deal with it rather than be surprised.

She also encouraged people to go to the fact-checking websitefactcheck.orgto keep abreast of whats being written or said on media sites and how accurate or inaccurate the reporting is.

For Jamiesons full speech and Q & A session, visit seminarsatsteamboat.org.

Frances Hohl is a contributing writer for Steamboat Pilot & Today.

Read this article:
Free speech advocate, noted professor hopes media and public are better prepared to fight election disruption - Steamboat Pilot and Today

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris wants a bright line separating WikiLeaks from big media, but there is only a political one, says Joe Lauria.

By Joe LauriaSpecial to Consortium News

During a September 2017 U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee debate on an intelligence bill a line was inserted that said WikiLeaks resembles a non-state hostile intelligence service and that the U.S. should treat it as such.

This language would help investigators secure the authorization needed to surveil those U.S. citizens thought to be associated with WikiLeaks, a McClatchy report quoted a government lawyer as saying.

You need to show that someone is an agent of a foreign power, said the lawyer, Robert Deitz, who held senior legal positions at the Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency.

Its possible that Assange has colleagues in this country that they need to focus on, McClatchy quoted Deitz as saying, noting that such action can only be done under court order.

The non-state hostile agency phrase was directly lifted from a scurrilous speech by Mike Pompeo in his first address as CIA director.

The language survived the committee and made it into the bill voted on by the full Senate. But before it did two senators raised objections to it. One was Ron Wyden of Oregon.

The other was Sen. Kamala Harris of California, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential candidate in Novembers election.

According to the McClatchy report,

Harris declared that she is no supporter of WikiLeaks, which she said had done considerable harm to the United States. But the clause on the group is dangerous because it fails to draw a bright line between WikiLeaks and legitimate news organizations that play a vital role in our democracy, according to her remarks for the record.

Harris left no doubt that she is an enemy of WikiLeaks, as is her running mate, Joe Biden, who agreed it was more like a high-tech terrorist organization that Daniel Ellsbergs release of the Pentagon Papers.

Harris made clear she cared only about establishment media (which almost universally undergirds aggressive U.S. foreign policy) and was worried about it getting caught up in a WikiLeaks dragnet.

She said she wants a bright line between publications such as The New York Times and WikiLeaks.

Except, there can be no such legal line drawn as both establishment papers, like the Times, and WikiLeaks have done the exact same thing: possessed and published classified material.

Because there is no legal distinction, the Obama administration, which desperately wanted to indict WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, backed away citing its New York Times problem. The Trump administration had no such qualms and had Assange arrested in April 2019 and indicted on conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and 17 counts of the Espionage Act.

The only bright line that can be drawn is political: a decision by the Department of Justice to not prosecute big media but to prosecute WikiLeaks for the same crime, which conflicts with First Amendment press freedoms.

This is what Harris was calling for: Protect the state-managed corporate media but go after a serious publication that dares to reveal crimes of the U.S. government, which Harris wants to protect. In other words, for the same activity, the Times is afforded First Amendment protections, but WikiLeaks is not.

In an answer last year to this question from The New York Times about the Trump administrations prosecution of Assange: Are these charges constitutional? Would your administration continue the Espionage Act part of the case against Assange?Harris said:

The Justice Department should make independent decisions about prosecutions based on facts and the law. I would restore an independent DOJ and would not dictate or direct prosecutions.

If she stuck to that, it would mean Harris would be in favor of also prosecuting the facts and the law as it applies to the Times for publishing the Iraq War Diaries, just as WikiLeaks did, and for which its founder faces 175 yearsthe rest of his lifein a U.S. super-max prison.

That it was a political decision by the Trump administration, and not a legal one, to go after Assange but not the Times, further bolsters the argument of Assanges lawyers that the U.S. extradition request is for a political offense, and thus forbidden by the U.S.-UK Extradition Treaty of 2006.

Not that his extradition for a political offense would much bother Kamala Harris, judging from her remarks.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London and began his professional career as a stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

Link:
What Kamala Harris Really Thinks of WikiLeaks - Consortium News