The Business of the Internet Is Stuck in Trump’s Swamp – WIRED

At an appearance at a tech conference last September, Facebook's Zuckerberg expressed his disgust. "The government blew it," he said. But the consequences of the government's actionsand the spectacular leak that informed the world about itwas now plopped into the problem set of Zuckerberg, Page, Tim Cook, Marissa Mayer, Steve Ballmer, and anyone else who worked for or invested in a company that held customer data on its servers.

Not just revenue was at stake. So were ideals that have sustained the tech world since the Internet exploded from a Department of Defense project into an interconnected global web that spurred promises of a new era of comity. The Snowden leaks called into question the Internet's role as a symbol of free speech and empowerment. If the net were seen as a means of widespread surveillance, the resulting paranoia might affect the way people used it. Nations outraged at US intelligence-gathering practices used the disclosures to justify a push to require data generated in their countries to remain there, where it could not easily be hoovered by American spies. Implementing such a scheme could balkanize the web, destroying its open essence and dramatically raising the cost of doing business.

Ask Me One Thing

Corey writes, You said we are allowed to ask for anything. and I have many, many tech questions. But what I need the most is the press contact information to Bill and Melinda Gates.

Corey, do I look like Google? But you are correctI invite readers to ask me anything. So heres the contact page for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of particular interest to you will be the section about media inquiries. I do hope that either Bill or Melinda gives an interview to your TV station.

While were on the subject, let me take the chance to say that, in general, reporters arent the best conduit to the subjects they interview. Its not like we hang out with our billionaire interviewees all the time, and late in our evenings with them, after weve drained the choicest bottles from their data-center-sized wine cellars, Bill or Jeff or Zuck will ask us, Hey, did you get any emails recently from people who have come up with inventions that will make me more billions? Or a totally novel and foolproof idea for world peace? I hope this clears up this apparently widely held misconception. And Corey, you are welcome to ask me those tech questions now.

See original here:
The Business of the Internet Is Stuck in Trump's Swamp - WIRED

Early Edition: September 22, 2020 – Just Security

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inboxhere.

A curated guide to major national security news and developments over the past 24 hours. Heres todays news.

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

A top-secret CIA assessment has concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his tops aides are probably directing a Russian interference operation aimed at denigrating Democratic presidential nomineeJoe Biden and supporting President Trump ahead of the 2020 presidential election, the first line of the assessment states. The documents also set out the CIAs assessments of Ukrainian lawmakerAndriy Derkach, who has previously been linked to Trumps lawyer Rudy Giulianis efforts to discredit Biden however, it does not go as far as to name Giuliani, who has now been working with Derkach publicly for months, instead stating Derkach had interacted with a prominent person linked to Trump. Josh Rogin writes in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

Andrew Weissmann, a former deputy on Special Counsel Robert Muellers team that investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, says Muellers team could have done more to hold Trump accountable and uncover the truth, his new book, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation, states, which Random House will publish next week. Weissmanns book criticizes Muellers top deputy, Aaron Zebley,for halting deeper investigations into Trumps finances, which might have established a source of Russian leverage over Trump. It also makes clear that Mueller had enough evidence to conclude that Trump obstructed justice, charges which could rear their head if Trump leaves office in November as he would lose immunity from criminal prosecution. Weissmann also charges Attorney General William Barr of betraying both friend and country. Matt Zapotosky and Spencer S. Hsu report for the Washington Post.

US DEVELOPMENTS

The office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., which is currently in a contentious legal battle with President Trump over obtaining eight years of his tax returns and related records, suggested yesterday for the first time specific criminal charges that may follow, including tax and insurance fraud and falsifying business records, citing news reports and public testimony that accused Trump of misconduct as justification for the grand jury investigation into possible criminal charges, court filings made yesterday by Vances legal team have revealed. The offices investigation into Trump started over two years ago and is looking into alleged hush-money payments he made in 2016 to two women who claimed they had had an affair with the president, and also a variety of business transactions, Carey Dunne, the offices general counsel said. Benjamin Weiser and William K. Rashbaum report for the New York Times.

The Trump administration yesterday announced an executive order and new unilateral sanctions against Iran which aim to reimpose an indefinite international arms embargo on the country, bypassing strong opposition from world leaders who dismiss the move as unlawful and ineffective.The new executive order gives the administration a new and powerful tool to enforce the U.N. arms embargo and hold those who seek to evade U.N. sanctions accountable, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, adding that its first targets include Irans Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, Irans Defense Industries Organization and its director, Mehrdad Akhlaghi-Ketabchi, many associated with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and also Venezuelan President Nicols Maduro. Quint Forgey reports for POLITICO.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden, the former CIA contractor who was charged with espionage after releasing classified National Security Agency (NSA) documents related to US surveillance programs in 2013,has agreed to forfeit over $5 million he earned from his tell-all book, Permanent Record,according to court records. Snowdens book was published last year without approval from government, breaching contracts he signed with the CIA and NSA. The judge agreed with the Department of Justice (DOJ)s lawsuit and ruled that Snowden must pay back the financial gains he received. A forfeiture plan has yet to be approved by the judge. Katelyn Polantz reports for CNN.

Update: After publication, Snowden disputed the CNN reports characterization of these developments, and replied to Just Security on Twitter noting he disagreement.

A New York Police Department (NYPD) officer was yesterday charged with acting as a spy for the Chinese government to provide information on the New York Tibetan community, according to a criminal complaint filed, which accused Baimadajie Angwang, 33, of working at the direction and control of Chinese officials at the consulate in New York. Prosecutors have charged him with acting as a foreign agent without notifying American authorities, wire fraud and making false statements, according to the complaint. Sonia Moghe reports for CNN.

District Judge Victor Marrero yesterday ruled that the US Postal Service must ensure it processes election mail on time for the November presidential election, a 87-page ruling has revealed, in which Marrero stressed that, the right to vote is too vital a value in our democracy to be left in a state of suspense in the minds of voters weeks before a presidential election. Marreros judgment follows a decision by District Judge Stanley Bastian in Yakima, Washington, last week that ordered the USPS to end practices that were slowing down mail deliveries. In his judgement, Marrero said that: the Postal Service must treat all election mail as First Class Mail; the alleged reversal of highly-criticized operational changes were either unenforced and not yet fully implemented or possibly insincere; and that Trump, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the Postal Service had not provided trusted assurance and comfort that citizens will be able to cast ballots with full confidence that their votes would be timely collected and counted. Marrero gave those involved in the case until Friday to settle their issues in a manner that was in-line with his findings and ruling. AP reporting.

The House yesterday unanimously approved the Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act which would make hacking federal voting system as a federal crime. The Act received approval by the Senate last year July, and would make hacking any federal voting infrastructure a criminal offence under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which the DOJ often uses to prosecute hackers. The bipartisan bill will now make its way to Trump for his approval. Maggie Miller reports for The Hill.

The Justice Department yesterday threatened to stop federal funding to New York, Portland, OR, and Seattle because of the cities handling of violence and unrest during protests over racial injustice and police brutality, which follows a memo sent earlier this month by the White House instructing the DOJ to identify jurisdictions it argued Democrats had permitted anarchy to persist. Attorney General William Barr said in a statement: We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance, adding that he hopes the three cities would reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens. Sadie Gurman reports for the Wall Street Journal.

House Democrats stopgap spending bill includes a provision for $1.6 billion for the Navy to enter into a contract, beginning with fiscal year 2021, for the procurement of up to two Columbia class submarines, the continuing resolution (CR) released yesterday revealed. The bill also grants the Navy authority to incrementally fund the new submarines. However, the bill is unlikely to make it through the Senate, with many Republicans expressing disdain for the bills silence on aid for farmers affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Rebecca Kheel reports for The Hill.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has started an investigation into an envelope sent to the White House, addressed to Trump, that reportedly contained the highly poisonous substance ricin. The police departments Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives team is reportedly leading the operation, the police force said in a post on Twitter yesterday. Andy Blatchford reports for POLITICO.

Trump will announce his Supreme Court nomination by the end of this week, he said in an interview yesterday on Fox & Friends, adding that he is currently considering four or five women to potentially replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,who sadly passed Friday. Quint Forgey and Anita Kumar report for POLITICO.

CORONAVIRUS

The novel coronavirus has infected over 6.85 million and killed almost 200,000 people in the United States,according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. Globally, there is close to 31.35 million confirmed coronavirus cases and over 965,000 deaths. Sergio Hernandez, Sean OKey, Amanda Watts, Byron Manley and Henrik Pettersson report forCNN.

When Congress passed the Cares Act earlier this year it gave the Pentagon $1 billion to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus by building medical equipment however, the majority of this money was redirected to defense contractors and used to fund making new jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms. Even defense contractors who were protected under the Paycheck Protection Program were given some of the money, it has been revealed. Aaron Gress and Yeganeh Torbati report for the Washington Post.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suddenly removed yesterday guidance it published Friday that said that air transmission of the coronavirus might be one of the most common ways to spread the virus. The agency said that Fridays guidelines were a draft and posted in error, although it did say it was updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission, which will be reposted online once reviewed and finalized. Apoorva Madavilli reports for the New York Times.

A map and analysis of all confirmed cases of the virus in the US is available at the New York Times.

US and worldwide maps tracking the spread of the pandemic are available at theWashington Post.

A state-by-state guide to lockdown measures and reopenings is provided by the New York Times.

Latest updates on the pandemicatThe Guardian.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Afghan forces and the Taliban saw the worst night of clashes Sunday since peace negotiations between the two warring sides began in Qatar over a week ago, with at least 57 members of the Afghan security forces and 80 Taliban fighters reportedly killed across Afghanistan. The clashes took place in central province of Uruzgan, although casualties were also reported in the provinces of Baghlan, Takhar, Helmand, Kapisa, Balkh, Maidan Wardak and Kunduz, provincial officials have said. Al Jazeera reporting.

Here is the original post:
Early Edition: September 22, 2020 - Just Security

As Joe Rogan’s Platform Grows, So Does the Media and Liberal Backlash. Why? – The Intercept – First Look Media

Todays SYSTEM UPDATE examining this topic with guest Shant Mesrobian, former Obama 2008 strategist and author of a recent viral thread on the liberal contempt for Rogan can be viewed onThe Intercepts YouTube channel.

Joe Rogan has amassed one of the largest and most influential media platforms in U.S. politics, if not the single most influential. The value of his program was quantified in May when the streaming service Spotify paid a reported $100 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast hispodcast.

As one illustrative example of his reach, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden appeared on Rogans program six days ago, and the episode has already been viewed more than 5 million times on YouTube alone. The first time Snowden appeared on his programwas last October, and that episode, just on YouTube, has more than 16 million views. To put that in perspective: The top-rated cable news programs are the Fox News shows hosted by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, and theyaverage between 4 to 5 million viewers, or one-fourth the number of views Rogans discussion with Snowdengenerated.

Rogan is rarely discussed in mainstream political and media circles, which raises its own questions. Why does someone who packs such a big punch in terms of audience size and influence receive so much less media attention than, say, cable news hosts with audience sizes far smaller than his? Presidential candidates certainly recognize Rogans importance: All of the major Democratic candidates, according to him, requested to appear on his show. (The only ones he invited on were Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang.)

Joe Rogan interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders on Aug. 6, 2019.

Photo: YouTube

Rogan was in the news this week after President Donald Trump favorably responded to a guests suggestion that Rogan host a four-hour, sit-down presidential debate between the two candidates. The mere suggestion that someone like Rogan could host as prestigious and high-minded an event as a presidential debate prompted condescending scorn from establishment media precincts.

Prior to that, one of the few times Rogan was discussed in mainstream political circles was when outrage among establishment Democratsensued after Sanders touted a quasi-endorsement from Rogan.The argument wasthat Rogans views are sorepellent, bigoted, and anathema to liberalism that no Democratic candidate should be associated with him (this anger was shared by some of Sanders own supporters including, reportedly,Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).

What is it, by the standards of U.S. political and media orthodoxy, that makes Rogan so radioactive? In March, billionaire and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg who spoke at the 2004 GOP Convention in the middle of the Iraq War and war on terror to urge the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and who presided over and repeatedly defended the racially disparate stop and frisk police practice endorsed Joe Biden for president, and Biden not only accepted butcelebrated the endorsement, praising Bloomberg in the process:

What are the standards that make Michael Bloomberg an acceptable endorsement to tout but not Joe Rogan, given that thebillionaire three-term mayor and former Republicanhas taken far worse positions and done far more damage to far more people than the podcaster could ever dream of doing?

That question is even more compelling when it comes to the Biden/Harris campaigns touting of the endorsement of former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, widely blamed for the criminally negligent lack of clean drinking water which plagued primarily African American residents of Flint, Michigan, for many years. Not only did the Biden campaign accept Snyders endorsement, but they issued a press release trumpeting it:

What makes all of this more confounding is that Rogan is a fairly basic political liberal on almost every issue: He believes in the need for greater social spending for the nations poor and working class, opposes war and militarism, favors drug legalization, is adamantly pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, and generally adheres to liberal orthodoxies on standard political debates. That is why he was so fond of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, and why Andrew Yang whose signature issue was the universal basic income was one of the few candidates he deemed worth talking to.

The objectionstypically raised to Rogan concern his questioning of some of the very recent changes brought about by trans visibility and equality, particularly asking whether it is fair for trans women who have lived their entire lives and entered puberty as biological men to compete against cis women in professional sports (a question also asked and even answered in the negative by LGBT sports pioneer Martina Navratilova, among many others), and whether young children are emotionally and psychologically equipped to make permanent choices about gender reassignment therapies and gender dysphoria.

If embracing and never questioning the full panoply of trans advocacy is a prerequisite to being permitted in decent society, I seriously doubtmany prominent Democratic politicians will pass that test (even Kamala Harris, from San Francisco and the very blue state of California, has a very mixed record on trans rights). Moreover, though polling data is sparse, thedata that is available show that there is still much work to do in this area: Onlya small minority of Americans believe it is fair to allow trans women to participate in female professional sports.

If the standard is that anyone who even entertains debates over the maximalist and most controversialquestions in this very new and evolving social movement is to be cast out as radioactive, liberalism and the Democratic Party will be a very small group. It will also have to proceed without the vast majority of political leaders whom they currently follow. Even on this issue of trans rights, Rogans views are in accord with the standard Democratic Party view: He advocates full legal protection and dignity for the right of trans people to livewith theirgender respected.

The other critique centers on Rogans willingness to invite on his show various pundits with far-right views. Thats a bizarre criticism of someone who purposely hosts a program designed to foster dialogue with people across the political spectrum. After all, if one employs the blatantly irrational tactic of attributing to Rogan the views of all his guests, he would be simultaneously everything and nothing.

But again, this is a standard which few if any Democratic Party leaders could meet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders all went on Bill OReillys Fox News show, while Rep. Adam Schiff has appeared on Tucker Carlsons program. Speaking with people with differing views is called politics and journalism, and if one is decreed radioactive for interacting with people with bad views, few will survive that standard. (Liberals also point to the fact that Rogan said he could not vote for Biden over Trump, but that was not on ideological grounds but based on the same narrative that Democratic political and media elites spent all of last year disseminating: namely, that Bidens cognitive decline makes him unfit for the job.)

While Rogan is politically liberal, he is argues former Obama 2008 campaign strategist and Rogan listener Shant Mesrobianculturally conservative, by which he does not mean that Rogan holds conservative views on social issues (again, he is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights). He means that Rogan exudes culturally conservative signals: He likes MMA fighting, makes crude jokes, hunts, and just generally fails to speak in the lingo of the professional managerial class and coastal elites. And it is those cultural standards, rather than political ones, that make Rogan anathema to elite liberal culture because, Mesrobian argued in a viral Twitter thread, liberals care far more about proper culturesignaling than they do about the much harder and more consequential work of actual politics.

As Rogans platform grows, it is worthwhile to understand his appeal, his audience, and what he is doing that is new and different to attract such a large following. But it is also very worth examining the reaction to him by the political and media class because in that reaction, one finds many revealing attributes about how they think, what they value, and the priorities that they actually venerate. Todays SYSTEM UPDATEon The Intercepts You Tube channelwith Mesrobian as my guest is devoted to examining those questions, or it can be viewed on the player below:

Read the rest here:
As Joe Rogan's Platform Grows, So Does the Media and Liberal Backlash. Why? - The Intercept - First Look Media

Russia wants to outlaw TLS 1.3, ESNI, DNS over HTTPS, and DNS over TLS – Privacy News Online

The Russian Ministry of Digital Development, Communications, and Mass Media has released a draft law which outlines plans to outlaw TLS 1.3, ESNI, DNS over HTTPS, and DNS over TLS. The draft law (text in Russian) bans the use of encryption protocols allowing for hiding the name (identifier) of a web page or Internet site on the territory of the Russian Federation. This is supposed to help the Roskomnadzor in their job as Russias censor. If a site is found to be using these encryption tools, they can be blocked by the Roskmonadzor within a day. Meduza, reporting on the news noted:

Experts point out that a number of large Internet companies, including the Russian Internet giant Yandex, currently rely on these technologies and underscore that this new initiative could lead to another mass block of IP addresses belonging to major providers like Amazon Web Services and Cloudflare, the hosts behind many sites.

The Russian government had previously blocked a large portion of the internet in their since halted attempts to block access to Telegram. Russia has banned a lot of things like certain types of VPN use in its day, and some of the bans have been more efficacious than others.

The Roskomnadzors job used to be easy. Dmitry Belyavsky, an encrypted systems developer, explained to Meduza:

Once upon a time, all of the addresses of sites and pages on the Internet were transmitted in plain text, not encrypted, so when the Roskomnadzor blocking system [first] began working in Russia, it was assumed that the filter would work according to URL, that is, the addresses of individual pages on Internet sites. However, one year after [its] implementation, largely under the influence of Edward Snowdens revelations, the whole world began rapidly switching to using HTTPS a protocol that provides encryption between the site and the users device. For this reason, its impossible to block the individual pages of sites that are using HTTPS according to URL.

Since then, the Roskomnadzor has turned to blocking based on hostnames and thats where these new technologies that are finally being implemented across the web stand in the way. The draft law explained the rationale behind the ban:

The use of the algorithms and encryption methods listed has the capacity to reduce the effectiveness of using existing filtration systems [for Internet traffic], which, in turn, significantly complicates the identification of resources available on the Internet, which contain information that is restricted or prohibited for distribution in the Russian Federation.

Those are well known features of TLS 1.3, ESNI, DNS over HTTPS, and DNS over TLS and for a whole government to seek to outlaw these technologies by name is a vote in favor of their efficacy. The official Russian solution is for websites to use state approved Russian cryptographic algorithms Magma and Kuznechik and a state issued SSL certificate. Whether this draft law passes remains to be seen, but what is clear is that Russia is still barrelling headlong towards the establishment of a Russian internet (coined RuNet) that may eventually put the infamous Great Firewall of China to the south to shame.

See the original post:
Russia wants to outlaw TLS 1.3, ESNI, DNS over HTTPS, and DNS over TLS - Privacy News Online

Edward Snowden agrees to give up more than $5 million from book and speeches – CNN

A federal judge had sided with the Justice Department in its lawsuit to claw back Snowden's proceeds, and was considering how much he would need to pay.

The judge has not yet approved the forfeiture plan.

Snowden, who lives in Russia, had earned $4.2 million from his book sales, royalties and related rights as of this month. He gave 56 paid speeches that included disclosures that breached his government secrecy agreement, according to the court filing from his lawyers in the US and the Justice Department. In all, Snowden made about $1.03 million from the speeches, with an average speaking fee of $18,000.

The money will be put in a trust, according to the plan to which Snowden and the Trump administration agreed.

An attorney for Snowden said the agreement filed in court on Tuesday doesn't mean the US government will be able to immediately collect the money, because Snowden is considering appealing the judge's previous decision that he was liable for the disclosures.

"This is not like he's going to fork over the money. This gives them a judgment they were going to get anyways," said Lawrence Lustberg, Snowden's attorney, on Monday, noting that it may be difficult for the US government to get access to Snowden's funds if they're kept out of the country.

The $4 million was Snowden's advance from his publisher for writing his book, Lustberg said.

Link:
Edward Snowden agrees to give up more than $5 million from book and speeches - CNN

Russias Digital Development Ministry wants to ban the latest encryption technologies from the RuNet – Meduza

Russias Ministry of Digital Development, Communications, and Mass Media wants to ban websites from using the latest encryption technologies, to make it easier for Russias federal censor, Roskomnadzor, to block access to RuNet resources containing prohibited content. Experts point out that a number of large Internet companies, including the Russian Internet giant Yandex, currently rely on these technologies and underscore that this new initiative could lead to another mass block of IP addresses belonging to major providers like Amazon Web Services and Cloudflare, the hosts behind many sites.

Russias Digital Development Ministry has published a draft law for public comment, which bans the use of encryption protocols allowing for hiding the name (identifier) of a web page or Internet site on the territory of the Russian Federation. The bill would allow for sites that violate the ban to be blocked within one working day of the violation being identified, it says.

An explanatory note clarifies that the draft law refers to protocols that use the cryptographic algorithms and encryption methods TLS 1.3, ESNI, DNS over HTTPS, and DNS over TLS, which are becoming increasingly common.

The use of the algorithms and encryption methods listed has the capacity to reduce the effectiveness of using existing filtration systems [for Internet traffic], which, in turn, significantly complicates the identification of resources available on the Internet, which contain information that is restricted or prohibited for distribution in the Russian Federation, the document says.

Once upon a time, all of the addresses of sites and pages on the Internet were transmitted in plain text, not encrypted, so when the Roskomnadzor blocking system [first] began working in Russia, it was assumed that the filter would work according to URL, that is, the addresses of individual pages on Internet sites, explains encryption systems developer Dmitry Belyavsky. However, one year after [its] implementation, largely under the influence of Edward Snowdens revelations, the whole world began rapidly switching to using HTTPS a protocol that provides encryption between the site and the users device. For this reason, its impossible to block the individual pages of sites that are using HTTPS according to URL.

As a result, according to Belyavsky, the time came for blocking according to hostname the name of the server where the site is located, which needs to be turned off, since the hostname is still transmitted in plain text to establish a connection. However, a hostname being publicly available also frames the users in some respects and gives out the site in more ways than one. But people in the West are used to thinking that companies dont care about their confidentiality. Therefore, technologies are now being developed and implemented, [like] DNS over TLS, DNS over HTTPS, and Encrypted Client Hello, which also hide the hostname from an external observer, thereby making it more difficult to find out which sites the user is visiting, and [complicating] the procedure for blocking any Internet sites.

These technologies are now being implemented actively on the Internet, many sites hosted by major foreign providers are starting to use them. For example, Google is gradually introducing support for DNS over HTTPS in its browser, Chrome, while Mozilla is gradually developing support for this protocol in its Firefox browser by default.

In Russia, the servers DNS over TLS and DNS over HTTPS emerged at Yandex, says Belyavsky. According to this draft law, all of the sites that use them will be outlawed in Russia and will have to be blocked. And since its impossible to block just them, they will block entire subnets of hosting providers just because of the use of these technologies. That is, Roskomnadzor will block the entire IP address range for Amazon Web Services, Digital Ocean, and Cloudflare again, the way it was when the department tried to block Telegram in Russia several years ago. As a result, the users will suffer once again, he says, in sum.

In AprilMay 2018, when Roskomnadzor had just started trying to block the messaging app Telegram, it ordered a block of several million IP addresses belonging to Amazon Web Services, Google, and Digital Ocean, which caused problems accessing many other services hosted by these providers.

In an explanatory note, the bills authors from the Digital Development Ministry add that the departments Unified Registry of Russian Software contains information about protocols using cryptographic algorithms and encryption methods that can be used in accordance with the Russian Federations legislation. In other words, according to them, there are alternative technologies for encryption available in Russia, which wont interfere with Internet blocks.

In addition, the Voskhod Research Institute (which is subordinated to the Digital Development Ministry) is creating a certification center in Russia, which intends to issue SSL certificates for encrypting connections on sites using the Russian crypto algorithms Magma and Kuznechik.

Filipp Kulin, the former co-owner of the hosting provider Diphost, notes that the Russian authorities have wanted to replace foreign encryption protocols on the RuNet with domestic ones for a long time, but theres an obstacle the majority of operating systems and browsers dont work with Russian cryptographic algorithms.

Text by Maria Kolomychenko

Translation by Eilish Hart

Here is the original post:
Russias Digital Development Ministry wants to ban the latest encryption technologies from the RuNet - Meduza

How Web 3.0 And Cryptocurrencies Transform The Economy – Forbes

Bitcoin golden physical coin illustration on Euro banknotes of 20 and 50 euros. visual ... [+] representations of the digital Cryptocurrency Bitcoin with the Euro bill. Bitcoin is a popular digital currency that showed growth and is widely spread, accepted from banks, markets and other services and shops as ways of payments. The exchange rate today for 1 bitcoin blockchain is 9969 euros. Thessaloniki, Greece - August 8, 2020 (Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Theres been some soul-searching about cryptocurrencies. While exciting use cases have popped up from decentralized finance (DeFi), to Bitcoins use as an institutional and programmatic hedge against inflation, a unified thesis behind the actual practical usability of various different cryptocurrencies is elusive.

Adoption among average users beyond investment purposes has been slower than one would want, and few people understand the underlying architecture that makes cryptocurrencies so useful. While many might enjoy the yields or returns they get or the investment returns, the questions how and why dont pop up as often.

Web 3.0 makes sense as a proxy for the unity of ideas that bring cryptocurrencies together into a coherent economic thesis, one with deeper philosophical and practical implications for the economy at large.

The Internet has become a larger and larger portion of peoples days, and has grown up to become economically transformative, with major tech companies being central parts of stock indexes. The architecture of the Internet itself is now a central economic question since whoever controls and is able to effectively process the flow of data it generates is now able to make massively outsize returns.

Web 2.0 was the idea that with the ease of participation and personalization, people would join the Internet en masse. The providers of services that made it easy to sign up and start communicating with different friends would then reap massive benefits, both in terms of savings and economies of scale on providing those services to billions of users as well as the data that would come out of that.

The outsize winners of that were content aggregators and filters that benefited from the drive to join the Internet en masse (such as Google GOOGL ) as well as the providers of Web 2.0 services, Facebook chief among them.

One of the effects this created was an Internet that was centralized and followed many of the same economic rules as other sectors of the economy. Companies that grew up during this era raced to become public companies that traded on stock markets.

Generations of the brightest people in computer science and engineering became obsessed with one single economic metric: how to optimize ads and drive offline economic consumption based on online behavioral patterns. The data they were accumulating to optimize ads and juice consumer spending in the economy at large were also used by governments and others to influence politics and to create the possibilities of vast realms of surveillance and access control to uplift government power.

The Internet lost a bit of the magic of what Edward Snowden described in his early days in his Permanent Record autobiography: a wild landscape of eccentrics and learning without strong economic incentives, a kind of funhouse place where people savvy enough to get connected onto the early Internet could connect with one another without any economic incentives or commercialization or government spying.

Web 3.0 is the idea of having a bit of a reset, keeping the userbase Web 2.0 brought on and some of its usability and personalization tenets along with the idea that individuals should be responsible for the self-custody of assets and services. Web 3.0 implies a greater set of responsibilities but also confers a larger degree of autonomy and censorship resistance for its users taking a large number of lessons from the two previous large waves of Internet innovation.

Instead of having cloud services hosted by different companies to provide the backbone of communications on the web users will host different servers that allow them access to digital transfer of assets and more. This includes nodes that form the basis of cryptocurrency networks.

This is relevant because with tit-for-tat nationalization on the Internet, censorship resistance has become essential to communicate between economies that are rapidly putting up digital walls among each other. The autonomy matters too with more and more countries looking to break end-to-encryption and to collect as much data as possible on their citizens. Being able to signal and meaningfully keep communications private and federated will matter more in different contexts.

This has dramatic implications for the economy at large. Cash flows from the Internet may no longer be focused on centralized advertising but rather flow into different decentralized economic flows that might not be tied to nation-state based stock markets but rather different economic values represented by cryptocurrencies.

Web 3.0 and cryptocurrencies make a strong ideological argument in a context of countries dividing the Internet and looking to implement more granular surveillance on each individual citizen. Using cryptocurrencies and self-hosted services like those in the Fediverse for routing communications and value can dramatically transform the economy as a whole starting from the Internet itself, and extending into every part of the economy.

Visit link:
How Web 3.0 And Cryptocurrencies Transform The Economy - Forbes

Whistleblowers: Fighting to be heard – RTE.ie

Whether it's Maurice McCabe or Edward Snowden, whistleblowers here and abroadare playing an increasing role in exposing wrongdoing. Their revelations have been a catalyst for media exposes, tribunals of inquiry and court prosecutions.

But these revelations can sometimes come at a personal cost, with many whistleblowers in Ireland describing the high price both they and their families faced when trying to expose uncomfortable truths.

This is borne out by the stories of the whistleblowers interviewed for the RT Investigates programme, Whistleblowers: Fighting to be Heard, to be broadcast on RT One television tonight at 9.35pm.

Some whistleblowers describe exposing wrongdoing as a long lonely road, with little or no support from work colleagues or employers.

They are typically seen as being disloyal or letting the side down, and some are even labelled as snitches, according to Professor Kate Kenny, of NUIG, an expert on the Protected Disclosure Act 2014, the legislation designed to protect whistleblowers.

"The research on Irish attitudes to whistleblowing looked at the top two phrases that come into your mind when you hear the word whistleblower among the top two was informant, rat, and we also had snitch," she says.

"This is established in research now. But the disloyalty tag is incorrect."

Fergus Finlay, the former CEO of Barnardos, adds: "It's a profoundly cultural issue within the system. They're seen as traitors and they suffer terribly; I don't know anyone (whistleblower) who hasn't suffered in their workplace, in their job."

"In fact, every whistleblower who has come forward, almost without exception, has helped to make Ireland a better place and a cleaner place."

Whistleblowers and the law

Whistleblowers are given protection under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

Under the Act, employees can take a case to the Workplace Relations Commission if they believe an employer has penalised them for blowing the whistle.

But how effective is this legislation?

Lauren Kierans, a barrister specialising in whistleblowing legislation, carried out extensive research into cases heard before the WRC, and the results are quite stark.

"I have looked at the case law under the legislation in a five-year period after the enactment of the legislation," she explains, "and what I have identified is that, it is very difficult to win a case under this legislation. So currently, 88% of cases have been unsuccessful. So, we are only looking at a 12% success rate.

"The fact that so many of the cases ... have been unsuccessful is really speaking to the deficiencies in the act that need to be amended."

Shirley McEntee, the Ambulance Service

Former ambulance control worker Shirley McEntee was shocked by the response of some colleagues after she spoke out about ambulance response times in the midwest six years ago.

"I spoke outside the clan, and you shouldn't do that," she explains.

"I got a few really bad responses as well, nasty texts, phone callsI was called a snitch. People could call me a rat, but I am not a rat, I told the truth."

In an RT Investigates programme in 2014, Shirley McEntee claimed there was "not enough vehicles on the road, not enough crews in a24hr period, you will be scrambling for an ambulance".

After the broadcast, she felt isolated by some colleagues.

"The isolation was people who would normally ring me never rang," she says. "You know your friends when you do things like this,with a lot of people there was silence, they didn't talk about it, like it never happened."

But Shirley says she has no regrets. "If there's wrong things done,it should be spoken aboutI was really glad I did it."

Seamus O'Loughlin, the ESB

Seamus O'Loughlin, is a health and safety manager in the State's biggest employer, the ESB.

Mr O'Loughlin made a number of protected disclosures related to the fact that up to one million litres of oil was leaking from underground ESB cables in Dublin for 20 years and the ESB had failed to report the leaks.

He also revealed how SF6, a gas that is enormously damaging to the environment, was leaking from the ESB power plant in Moneypoint.

Since he blew the whistle on the ESB's environmental record last year, Seamus O'Loughlin has accumulated significant legal bills dealing with the company's internal process arising from his protected disclosure.

The ESB has recently agreed to contribute 9,000 towards future legal expenses, but that has still left Seamus facing a massive legal bill.

According to Seamus the whistleblowing process has had a financial and psychological impact on both himself and his wife Hillary.

"I am still out on my own engaged in a legal process that is costing us an absolute fortune, 47,000, that is only the start of it," he says.

Hillary O'Loughlin adds: "It's having a toll on us now, as a family, we are starting to rely on more and more supports, professional, psychological supports It is still a frightening, lonely road and it is reallyuncertain."

RT Investigates has learned that the EPA has initiated a prosecution against the ESB. The regulator has brought six charges against the company in relation to leaks of SF6.

In a statement to RTInvestigates, the ESB confirmed it is facing a prosecution and said it could not comment further.

Seamus O'Loughlin still feels he had nochoice but to go public with his concerns about the ESB's environmental record.

But he has some sobering advice for would-be whistleblowers out there: "Be sure of your facts, be sure of your mental resolve and be absolutely sure of the support of your partner and family. Because it's going to put you through hell."

Leona O'Callaghan, University of Limerick

Vindication was a long time coming for Leona O'Callaghan.

Leona first raised her concerns about expense claims at the University of Limerick back in 2012.

She highlighted a number of issues, including payments made to some staff to cover the mileage costs between their homes and the university. Shealso raised a concern about tax-free travel allowances paid to an academic on sabbatical on the other side of the world.

Leona made a submission to the Dil Public Accounts Committee about the various payments.

The university later told the PAC that the sabbatical payments alone resulted in a six-figure settlement with the Revenue Commissioners.

"For the first couple of years, I was going nowhere," Leona says. "I felt on my own, they are relying on the inability of people to risk their jobs and risk their careers in moving forward."

She went on: "There was a lot of rumours, they were saying, that, I was imagining it, all these conspiracies and they were coming from an unwell place."

Leona went public about her concerns in an interview with the Limerick Leader newspaper. She was also among a number of whistleblowers from UL who featured in the RT Investigates documentary, Universities UnChallenged.

"They rely on silence," she says, "and the only way you can take it away is through the media and then the fear is transferred onto them. Then suddenly they are afraid."

In 2017, an external report by experts was extremely critical of the university's HR practices, corporate governance and financial practices.

"There was a lot of power," Leona says, "and I was just an administrator within the university. And I was on my own. For a long time, I felt I was in the wrong."

Olivia Greene, Irish Nationwide

Ten years on from her disclosures, Olivia Greene feels she has paid a heavy price for exposing lending practices at Irish Nationwide Building Society.

Olivia worked as a loans supervisor at the society, which later received a State bailout of 3 billion.

Olivia broke a confidentiality agreement in 2009 in order to speak out about the practices at the bank under its former boss Michael Fingleton.

Today, Olivia Greene no longer works in financial services.

While her former boss Michael Fingleton left Irish Nationwide with a 27 million pension pot, Olivia was not so fortunate.

"Life was pretty difficult for me in there, in Irish Nationwide, all my authority was stripped from me," she says. "Life inside was very torturous."

According to Olivia found she whistleblowing experience very stressful.

"It causes me a lot of anxiety because you are constantly questioning yourself afterwards, did I do the right thing, did I get it right, you feel panicked. You do become paranoid."

Olivia Greene has not worked in financial services for ten years and she describes her whistleblowing experience as "career suicide".

So would she do it again?

In response to that question Olivia says "I've asked myself many a time, would I do it again, or do I regret doing it in the first place. And yes - if I had to it again, I would do it again."

Iain Smith, The HSE

Whistleblowers regularly describe being targeted or victimised when they expose wrongdoing.

On top of that, many describe how their concerns are ignored.

In the high-profile foster abuse case known as Grace, the whistleblower Iain Smith felt he was left with little option but to leave the HSE in frustration, after spending years trying to raise his concerns.

This is the first time Iain has spoken publicly about the case of Grace, a vulnerable woman who was left by the authorities in the care of a foster family for 20 years, despite allegations of sexual and physical abuse.

"Why am I doing this interview?," he ponders."People should know what happens behind the scenes."

Iain was new to disability services in the HSE when he first came across the case of Grace. This was in 2007 when Grace'sbirth mother contacted him for the first time.

Speaking to RT in 2017,Grace's mother expressed her gratitude to Iain; "Only for the phone call, only for Iain that time, my daughter would still be in danger, if I didn't make that call that time that time."

Iain was shocked when he discovered a file related to the Grace case buried at the back of a filing cabinet.

It emerged that concerns for Grace were flagged on various occasions over the years about physical abuse and sexualised behaviour which led to serious concerns for her overall welfare.

However, she remained in the foster home.

According to Iain, he felt he had to take matters into his own hands,"I had to take that initiative myself as a private citizen and make complaint to the garda."

In 2009, Grace was finally made a ward of court. The State was now her legal guardian, 18 months after Iain Smith first recommended it.

Even after Grace was removed from the foster home, young vulnerable people continued to be placed, through private arrangements, in the very same foster home.

Iain decided to go straight to the Minister for Health at the time, Leo Varadkar.

He sent the minister a protected disclosure listing 14 significant concerns in September 2014.

IainSmith'sprotected disclosures eventually led to establishment of the Farrelly Commission in February 2016.

Now four years on, the commission is yet to even complete the first phase of its investigation and Iain Smith says he has now become a hostage to the process, with no end in sight.

"Although, I was prepared to give a certain amount of time to this, until Iappeared as a witness in front of a whole room of lawyers on 27 different days, as well as attending the commission on many more days," he says.

"I was effectively not able to work for a year as a result of participating in this commission and at the same time Iwas not able to leave."

The commission and the HSE declined to comment saying the work of the inquiry is ongoing.

Iain is one of two whistleblowers who have testified before the commission which is charged with examining the cases of 46 foster children including Grace.

It would not be the first commission of investigation or tribunal to run over time, as John Devitt, of Transparency Ireland, points out.

"The toll it is having on witnesses and victims is intolerable for many of them. Much more thought needs to be lent to the impact this has on people, particularly on those who are considering coming forward and ifthis will run over by years, people aremuch less likely to come forward in future."

Iain Smith feels he has paid a high price for highlighting his concerns, but he says: "I don't think I would have done anything differently; I could not have done anything differently. I am just the way I am."

Continue reading here:
Whistleblowers: Fighting to be heard - RTE.ie

Ron Paul: The War On Assange Is A War On Truth – OpEd – Eurasia Review

It is dangerous to reveal the truth about the illegal and immoral things our government does with our money and in our name, and the war on journalists who dare reveal such truths is very much a bipartisan affair. Just ask Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who was relentlessly pursued first by the Obama Administration and now by the Trump Administration for the crime of reporting on the crimes perpetrated by the United States government.

Assange is now literally fighting for his life, as he tries to avoid being extradited to the United States where he faces 175 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act. While it makes no sense to be prosecuted as a traitor to a country of which you are not a citizen, the idea that journalists who do their job and expose criminality in high places are treated like traitors is deeply dangerous in a free society.

To get around the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of the press, Assanges tormentors simply claim that he is not a journalist. Then-CIA director Mike Pompeo declared that Wikileaks was a hostile intelligence service aided by Russia. Ironically, thats pretty much what the Democrats say about Assange.

Earlier this month, a US Federal appeals court judge ruled that the NSAs bulk collection of Americans telephone records was illegal. That bulk collection program, born out of the anti-American PATRIOT Act, was first revealed to us by whistleblower Edward Snowden just over seven years ago.

That is why whistleblowers and those who publish their information are so important. Were it not for Snowden and Assange, we would never know about this government criminality. And if we never know about government malfeasance it can neve be found to be criminal in the first place. That is convenient for governments, but it is also a recipe for tyranny.

While we might expect the US media to aggressively come to the aid of a fellow journalist being persecuted by the government for doing his job, the opposite is happening. As journalist Glen Greenwald wrote last week, the US mainstream media is completely ignoring the Assange extradition trial.

Why would they do such a thing? Partisan politics. Journalists with a few important exceptions like Greenwald himself are no longer interested in digging and reporting the truth. These days they believe they have a higher calling.

As Greenwald puts it, If you start from the premise that Trump is a fascist dictator who has brought Nazi tyranny to the US, then it isnt that irrational to believe that anyone who helped empower Trump (which is how they see Assange) deserves to be imprisoned, hence the lack of concern about it.

That may seem like a good idea to these journalists in the short term, but for journalism itself to become an extension of government power rather than a check on that power would be deeply harmful.

We cannot have a self-governing society as was intended for our Republic if the government, with the complicity of the mainstream media, decides that there are things we are not allowed to know about it. President Trump should end the US governments war on Assangeand on all whistleblowers and their publishers.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Original post:
Ron Paul: The War On Assange Is A War On Truth - OpEd - Eurasia Review

Useful Idiots: Glenn Greenwald on Reality Winner Controversy and Asking Trump to Pardon Snowden – Rolling Stone

In this weeks quarantine episode of our Useful Idiotspodcast, hostsMatt Taibbi and Katie Halper are joined by Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, who has yet again found himself in the middle of some media controversies.

For Democrats suck, Katie breaks down the recent viral Joe Biden clip, in which Biden plays Despacito from his phone at a rally during Hispanic Heritage Month. Thats what we call Hispandering, says Katie, who translates the sensual lyrics of the song into English for our listeners.

Katie also gets fired up about a recent proposition on MSNBC that Bidens association with Bernie may be hurting him with Cuban-American voters in Florida. Im just so tired of people using the Cuban-American demographic as interchangeable with Latino, says Katie. [Bernie] did really well with Latinos.

If [Democrats are] going to turn around and blame Sanders if-and-when they have a problem in Florida coming up in November, thats going to be really rich, because they were the ones who made a huge deal of this last year, says Matt.

Matt and Katie also return to their theme of neighborly conflict, citing an article from The Mirror about an angry letter that was sent to a homeowner whod recently painted their garage. God, I love human beings, Matt quips.

Glenn Greenwald once again joins our hosts from Brazil to discuss debates about him and his colleagues in the media.

Greenwald rebuts Ben Smiths recent New York Times piece on The Intercept publishing the Reality Winner leak. It wasnt like The Intercept was free from mistakes, there were mistakes made, and they acknowledged those mistakes. The parent company paid for the sources, Reality Winners, legal defense, says Greenwald. I just dont know what this New York Times article added other than to try and just take shots at people incoherently.

Greenwald also charges that in many stories that hes appeared in, the journalists writing them have passed off hypotheses as facts, when Greenwald says many of those things are categorically untrue. I would be present for events, or conversations, or things that people did, and then I would read in a major news outlet in a very authoritative tone, describing something that I knew first-hand was completely false, says Greenwald. Youre listening to the most trusted and influential media outlets saying things that you know personally didnt happen, are totally false, over and over and over again Theres nothing like being at the center of a story to make you realize just what a disinformation machine it is.

Our hosts and Greenwald discuss questions surrounding the Assange hearing, which Greenwald describes as the one true assault on free press that has been pursued during Trumps tenure.

And finally, Greenwald explains his motivation for, once again, recently appearing on Tucker Carlsons show on Fox News, in which he made an appeal to Trump to pardon both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. I also know that going on Fox, the shows that Trump watches is a really effective way of speaking directly to the one person who holds the power of the pardon, and thats the president, says Greenwald. I think its my ethical duty to do what I can to end injustices in the world, such as the injustice of Edward Snowden being trapped in one country for having exposed things that Americans have the right to know, and the injustice of Julian Assange being prosecuted and and extradited to the United States on espionage charges for revealing war crimes about the United States. So when someone offers me the opportunity to end an injustice, and make the world more just, Im going to do that. And its not even a close debate for me. I care a lot more about outcomes, about actually having my beliefs manifest as change in the world, than I care about preening and posturing for the approval of LARPing online liberals.

See original here:
Useful Idiots: Glenn Greenwald on Reality Winner Controversy and Asking Trump to Pardon Snowden - Rolling Stone