Margaret Valenti writes on the necessity of resistance within the White House and the ramifications of Anonymous choice to remain anonymous.

A new book coming out, A Warning, is written by Anonymous, the same White House official who claimed in a New York Times article back in 2018 that they led a resistance against President Donald Trump from within the White House. The book speaks of the rampant turmoil within the Trump administration that has negatively impacted the U.S. and the world.

Similar to the Whistleblower currently wreaking havoc on the Trump administration a scandal which could theoretically cost Trump the White House or any chance of reelection there are attempts to identify and discredit the figure behind Anonymous. Donald Trump attempted to get The New York Times to give him the name of Anonymous back when the article was published. The Justice Department, at Trumps request, recently tried to get Hachette, the publisher of A Warning, to reveal the identity of the author as well, which Hachette refused to do.

Obviously, any insurgency within an administration, especially the White House, is deeply troubling and reveals a lot about the current state of the presidency and the country at large. No administration wants to endure a resistance from the inside, which is often more difficult to put down than any on the outside.

In a quote from The New York Times article, I Am Part Of A Resistance Within The White House, Anonymous writes that the erratic behavior would be more concerning if it werent for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

Perhaps some of these people are already out of the White House, even Anonymous themselves, but the issue of resistance within the White House, while perhaps necessary, is an issue of national security. There is hardly any denying that, it is almost as if the turmoil within the White House can somehow reverberate onto the citizens of the U.S. The rise of nationalism in countries and Presidents around the world like Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Rodrigo Duterte, Xi Jinping, Win Myint, and Jair Bolsonaro, to name a few, is a concern for liberals, who champion a globalist viewpoint rather than a patriotic one.

Most would claim that this rise in nationalism has more to do with the elected leaders than the resistance against them, but there is always a duality, a push and a pull. In the U.S., with the election of Obama, many were lured into the idea that the U.S. would continue on a liberal path. They did not anticipate the resistance that would come and then the counter-resistance that some feel is necessary now.

It is hard to know what Anonymous goals truly are. What proof is there, truly, that this person is doing anything at all to resist Trump from within the White House? Are we supposed to have blind faith? Even Anonymous admits themselves in their upcoming book that unelected bureaucrats and cabinet appointees were never going to steer Donald Trump in the right direction in the long run, or refine his malignant management style . . . He is who he is.

It is hard to know whether Anonymous can be trusted since they do not have the same evidence backing up their claims as the Whistleblower. Perhaps, A Warning will enlighten the public about these supposed efforts, but lets be clear, it is dangerous to dismiss Anonymous outright.

Ksenija Pavlovic McAteer, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of this publication, believes that Anonymous choice to remain anonymous erodes confidence in the constitutional powers of the First Amendment and ultimately disrespects those who choose to speak out and accept the repercussions. She wrote about her concerns recently in her article Grow Some Balls Anonymous And Take Off The Mask. However, if Anonymous is still working in the White House and should Anonymous hope to continue their resistance, revealing their identity might destroy everything they hope to gain by being an insider.

The First Amendment gives people the right to speak as they wish, with some limitations, and does not demand that they speak as they are. While the sacrifices both made by Jamal Khashoggi and Edward Snowden are excellent examples of people who exposed oppression and corruption, Khashoggi ended up dead and Snowden will continue his asylum in Russia until 2022. Snowden did flee on his own accord, but it is doubtful he would receive the same treatment as the current whistleblower. Given the specifics of his position in the CIA, he chose to whistleblow outside of government protocol and probably for good reason.

Both of these men were essentially labeled traitors and their individual circumstances were dealt with accordingly, with international ramifications. Anonymous is someone, like Snowden, whose very existence threatens the current stability of the U.S. Perhaps the government would protect Anonymous, but the First Amendment is clearly not a blanket protection. It certainly does not protect a U.S. citizen from foreign governments.

There are journalists in the U.S. who are jailed and threatened if they do not give up sources, and still they choose not to. In general, however, journalists do not look highly on anonymous sources. That is why when they choose to accept an anonymous source it is usually for a very good reason.

The New York Times acknowledged their decision to keep Anonymous anonymous in the initial article by writing that the Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers.

The book may not tell the public anything that they do not already know and Anonymous may simply be writing it to gain more popularity. Though Anonymous is against impeachment or the use of the 25th amendment to remove Trump from office, they do not want Trump to get reelected. Yet it is also true that Anonymous may be causing further disunion by writing the book, which is why they are against the use of impeachment and the 25th amendment in the first place. They cannot gain any profitsince all the proceeds from the book will be donated to the free press.

There are multiple cases around the world of journalists and traitors who did not and still do not have the luxury of being able to be anonymous and continue to speak out against oppression and corruption. These people are heroes. In no way does Anonymous choice to be anonymous intend to dishonor them. It is true that the U.S. offers a lot of protection for people who choose to speak out, but it is clear that the protection is still limited.

To still be a little bit afraid, especially during this administration, is not an invalid concern. Donald Trump and his allies still actively threaten the Whistleblower. If the Whistleblowers identity was ever publicly revealed, what would happen? Would they be protected or would they be labeled a traitor and end up like Snowden? There is a reason that anonymity is an important protection in The Whistleblower Protection Act.

If the blanket of anonymity is what Anonymous needs to speak out against this administration, even if they are no longer a senior White House official, I, personally, would rather they speak out than remain silent.

See the original post here:
Anonymous Is Necessary And Should Remain Anonymous - The Pavlovic Today

NEW DELHI :If we blame end-to-end encryption of WhatsApp for the Israeli spyware Pegasus that affected 1,400 select users of the Facebook-owned messaging app globally, including 121 in India, we will be barking up the wrong tree, say experts.

WhatsApp provides end-to-end encryption by default, which means only the sender and recipient can view the messages. But the piece of NSO Group software exploited WhatsApp's video calling system by installing the spyware via missed calls to snoop on the selected users.

This raised questions about the utility of encryption, which also prohibits security agencies from tracing the origin of messages. Traceability of WhatsApp messages is a key demand that India has put forward.

But security experts have warned that blaming end-to-end encryption for the spyware would not be right.

"WhatsApp as well as other leading instant messaging apps have recently adopted an end-to-end encryption. The encryption process itself is solid, messages that leave your device are encrypted and they stay that way until they reach their final destination," Yaniv Balmas, Head of Cyber Research, Check Point Software Technologies, told IANS.

"However, on your device, as well as on the receiving device the messages are decrypted so you can read them. A malicious application running on your device can inspect them, change or delete them just as well as you could. So the issue here is not in the applications or in their encryption protocol, but in the environment they are installed in," Balmas said.

According to leading tech policy and media consultant Prasanto K. Roy, end-to-end encrypted apps (E2EE) do provide security, and messages or calls cannot be intercepted and decrypted en route without enormous computing resources.

"But once anyone can get to your handset, whether a human or a piece of software, the encryption doesn't matter any more. Because on your handset, it's all decrypted," he explained.

"There's plain text on your screen, and plain audio or video in your camera. The right kind of spyware in your handset can read those messages or even listen in on your phone's mic to what someone is saying in the room, or see what's happening around, with the camera.

"If that happens then all apps are affected, not just WhatsApp. The spyware doesn't care about the app -- it just reads the screen. So, the recent incident has not changed the fact that E2EE apps/platforms are secure. Or the fact that spyware on your handset (which has many vectors: this time it was WhatsApp, but it is usually SMS or email) can compromise your entire handset and all its apps," Roy said.

In his memoir "Permanent Record", whistleblower Edward Snowden wrote that the Internet is currently more secure now than it was in 2013, especially given the sudden global recognition of the need for encrypted tools and apps.

Snowden, who served as an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and worked as a contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), rocked the world in 2013 after he revealed that the US was secretly building a way to collect the data of every person in the world, including phone calls, text messages and email.

"Perhaps the most important private sector change occurred when businesses throughout the world set about switching their website platforms, replacing http (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) with the encrypted https (the S signifies security), which helps prevent third party interception of Web traffic," Snowden wrote.

Balmas agreed the move to embrace encryption by chat applications marked a "good progress" in terms of user security and privacy.

"The encryption is solid and the algorithms behave as expected, however risks are still there, especially ones that originate from the surrounding operating system, which cannot be controlled or expected by any of the instant messaging software providers," he said.

This story has been published from a wire agency feed without modifications to the text. Only the headline has been changed.

Original post:
Is encryption to blame for WhatsApp snooping? - Livemint

By Paul Luk, Hong Kong Baptist University; and Vera Yuen, University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong is caught in a perfect storm. Internally, peaceful protests against a controversial extradition bill in June gradually escalated into violence, which destabilized the city politically and economically. Externally, intensifying trade tension between the United States and China is weighing on the Hong Kong economy.

Even before the protests broke out, the Hong Kong economy grew sluggishly by 0.5 percent in the first half of 2019 its worst performance since the global financial crisis. Since mass protests began, the economy has deteriorated precipitously, with retail sales, food and beverages, and the tourism sector hit the hardest. In September, retail sales were down by around 20 percent and tourist arrival by a whopping 34 percent year on year.

So far, other industries such as professional services and the financial industry have remained relatively resilient. Overall unemployment remains stable and low. And residential property prices have only fallen by around 5 percent since the beginning of the protests, due to tight housing supply and low interest rates.

Political unrest has persisted for over four months and shows no sign of abating. The government has not come up with effective measures to calm the situation, let alone to tackle the underlying structural issues the salient ones being high property prices, heightened inequality, and the mandate of the Chief Executive. Worse still, the recent enactment of emergency laws to ban masks ignited another wave of violent protests. The city has been under de facto curfew since the beginning of October, with the subway system closed early for more than two weeks.

With no resolution in sight, the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index for Hong Kong, a leading indicator of the future state of the economy, has risen sharply over the last four months. Uncertainty and collapse in confidence are likely to induce widespread cutbacks in business investments and domestic consumption in the near future. The risk of a prolonged and full-blown recession is rising quickly.

The long-term outlook for Hong Kong is no less worrying. The citys success as an international hub relies heavily on the "one country, two systems" principle. This allows Hong Kong to have its own governmental system, legal system, and trade relations with the rest of the world. In good times, Hong Kong is a place where the East works collaboratively with the West; in bad times it becomes a place where the East clashes with the West. A remarkable example of this was Hong Kongs failure to detain Edward Snowden in 2013 despite a U.S. extradition request.

On the one hand, Beijing takes advantage of Hong Kongs strategic position, using it as a controlled testing ground to experiment with financial reforms. Recent reforms initiated in Hong Kong, such as the "dim sum bonds," offshore renminbi deposits and Stocks and Bond Connects represent important steps towards renminbi internationalization a Chinese strategic goal. Hong Kong, as the middleman, also benefited from being the largest offshore renminbi business hub.

On the other hand, the "one country, two systems" principle is being constantly challenged. This has been the crux of Hong Kongs problems since at least 2014. The Occupy Central movement in 2014 was triggered by a decision of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress that installed extra hurdles in the long-promised popular election of the Chief Executive. To some, Beijings decision reneged on the promise of universal suffrage in the territory.

More recently, a number of popularly elected opposition lawmakers were ousted from the legislature for not taking their inauguration oaths properly. Other candidates were barred from running for the election for their localist political stance.

The chaos the extradition bill inspired exposed further evidence of Beijings meddling in Hong Kong affairs. For instance, in a leaked speech, Chief Executive Carrie Lam confessed that she could not resign from her position, nor did she have room to manoeuver. The bill was withdrawn in late October amid increasingly violent protests.

In the face of an escalating U.S.-China trade conflict, China would want to use Hong Kong as a buffer to circumvent trade barriers and restrictions to the transfer of sensitive technology. But for this strategy to work, China has to make the case to the rest of the world that Hong Kong still maintains a high degree of administrative autonomy.

Recent developments seem to indicate that Beijing did not have a coherent Hong Kong strategy. Now that the protests have brought so much international attention, the citys relationship with the mainland will be closely scrutinized by the rest of the world. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which would require the U.S. to review Hong Kongs special status every year. This leaves Chinese leaders little time to make up their minds about Hong Kong whether to oppress or to accommodate.

Prolonged unrest has widened the divide between Beijing and the business sector in Hong Kong. In September, credit rating agency Fitch downgraded the citys rating, and Moodys changed its outlook to negative. Once trust is shattered it is hard to regain even accommodative measures may not lure the businesses back.

For Beijing, the benefits of honoring the "one country, two systems" framework are shrinking. More severe oppression is increasingly likely.

READ NEXT: Learning From the Mistakes in Hong Kong

The News Lens has been authorized to republish this article from East Asia Forum. East Asia Forum is a platform for analysis and research on politics, economics, business, law, security, international relations and society relevant to public policy, centered on the Asia Pacific region.

TNL Editor: Daphne K. Lee (@thenewslensintl)

If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more story updates in your news feed, please be sure to follow our Facebook.

See the rest here:
Hong Kong Unlikely to Regain Confidence in Its Economic Outlook - The News Lens International

Along with gaudy rock operas, space operas, and superhero spectacles, well be deluged by movies ripped from the headlines whether they end up on Netflix or in theaters worldwide. Ever since Spotlight won the Best Picture Oscar in 2016, the same year The Big Short was expected to win, theres been a surge of these films about relatively recent real world events. I love it: Politics is show business for ugly people is a clich for a reason. Depending on the perspective of the script, these films can be entertaining, at least more entertaining than the news itself, which has never resembled ESPN or WWE more. Now these movies come non-stop: Just last month was Steven Soderberghs The Laundromat, last Christmas was Vice, this Christmas its Bombshell, a couple of months ago was Official Secrets, and then theres the stream of documentaries that will continue throughout the Trump presidency.

Scott Z. Burns The Report isnt propaganda, and its not infected by myopic Trump hysteria. Its a serviceable run-through of a story that most Americans tuned out for a number of reasons: a weary media, thousands of mostly redacted pages, and unbelievably horrific war crimes committed by Americans that not only violated the Geneva Convention but produced no useful intel after six years. Dan Jones is not infamous or in hiding like Edward Snowden or Julian Assangehe was never a whistleblower, and toward the end of The Report his avatar Adam Driver is given a chance by some wannabe Deep Throat to leak the full, un-redacted report on CIA enhanced interrogation techniques. He refuses: If its going to come out, its going to come out the right way. And indeed it did, albeit in summary form and still heavily redacted, in December 2014. Ive had a copy sitting on my shelf since then, but have never gone beyond skimming because its an abyss.

Society is based on a shared murder, croaks Jean-Luc Godard in this years The Image Book, the most comprehensive and concise examination and diagnosis of the failures of the 20th century and the hopelessness heading into the 21st. Its like a bad dream written in a stormy night. This says more than any third act speech or moralizing Oscar bait ever will. But The Report isnt bad, isnt bait, and even includes Zero Dark Thirty in its critique. Consumed by the investigation for years, Jones looks up one day to see a commercial for Kathryn Bigelows film, a reprehensible piece of propaganda on the order of Triumph of the Will and The Birth of a Nation, and by far the worst film Ive ever seen. Jones knew in late-2012 that what the movie was saying was false and he couldnt do anything about it. Bigelow put herself in league with Riefenstahl by making a movie that endorsed our governments lies about torture eventually leading to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The Report deserves credit not for exemplary filmmaking but honest portrayal of American war crimes and an attempted cover-up (who knows how much wasnt released). Made for Netflix, its a politically sound, albeit dry, dramatization of the CIAs torture program, and the report itself is equally boring and revolting. The movie is the same: Adam Driver is reliably good, as is Annette Bening as Dianne Feinstein (though I kept thinking of Elizabeth Warren watching herthat performance is inevitable). Many great character actors and people pulled from television that keep it briskamong them: Jon Hamm, Corey Stoll, Tim Blake Nelson (the compromised Vice President in Angel Has Fallen), Maura Tierney, Michael C. Hall and Jennifer Morrison. Its too long at two hours, and the sepia-toned flashbacks to CIA black sites with brutal dramatizations of these atrocities we sponsored: water-boarding, sleep deprivation, walling (take a wild guess), mock burials with insects. A suggestion is almost always better than this, or more dense sequences that depict or evoke the torture without having to, ironically, sit through what at times felt like a rehash of that violent object Zero Dark Thirty.

But Burns direction and script are otherwise taut and most importantly do justice to a very delicate subject thats been botched and abominated too many times now. Hes written some really good American social satires for Soderbergh: Side Effects, The Informant!, Contagion, and this years The Laundromat, a mixed bag and another Netflix movie. Im glad The Report is going out to two million Netflix subscribers and a handful of theaters. This isnt a great movie, but if you have the chance, and youre interested or want to know more about American war crimes in the 21st century, see it in a theater. Netflix, at the very least, doesnt skimpthey put money into their movies.

Follow Nicky Smith on Twitter: @nickyotissmith

See original here:
Magic Marker Cover-up - Splice Today

Impeachment has dominated the news cycle in recent weeks. As Republicans continue to defend President Trump and other administration officials, many conservatives have gone on the offensive and attacked the whistleblower that started it all.

Recently, Senator Rand Paul demanded that the whistleblower come forward under threat of public exposure of his or heridentity.

But this isnt the first time whistleblowers have made waves in American politics. Since the whistleblowers revelation came to light, historians have discussed the parallels between the Ukraine whistleblower and informants from past scandals.

In September, President Trump publicly condemned the DOJ whistleblower as close to a spy and insinuated that he or she should be executed. The article Whistleblower or spy? What the history of Cold War espionage can teach the US contrasts this modern controversy and the history of espionage in Cold War America.

According to Cold War historian Marc Favreau, Trumps accusation of treason is of particular note due to its inherent irony. Instead of serving as a conduit of information in conjunction with a foreign regime, the whistleblower merely followed established executive branch protocols in order to alert government officials that the president himself was doing just that. The article argues that this methodology precludes the use of the term spy, as an operative engaging in espionage would never risk exposure in this way.

Favreau continues with a critique of Trumps allusion to execution as a potential punishment, citing the controversy surrounding Americas only instance of spy executionthat of Soviet operatives Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in the 1950s. The death sentence served to the Rosenbergs was unprecedented in American history, and the decision remains controversial today. Although the Soviets were quick to execute citizens accused of espionage after holding them captive in the KGB dungeon in Moscow, execution was rarely an option for spies discovered in America.

Favreau concludes that Trump and his supporters clearly have an agenda in condemning the whistleblower in such a dramatic way, the president and his administration will find no support for their cause in the history of espionage.

Another piece, published in The American Prospect in October, presents a broad history of whistleblowing in America. Brittany Gibson writes in her piece All the Presidents Whistleblowers that the history of government whistleblowing is fraught with charges of espionage, inadequate protections, and real hardships for those who speak out. She cites scholar Allison Stanger to highlight the Obama administrations abuse of the Espionage Act of 1917 as a means of harshly punishing government whistleblowers.

Gibson uses individuals such as John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on waterboarding practices perpetrated by the Central Intelligence Agency, and Edward Snowden, who highlighted abuses of power in the National Security Agency, as examples of this. Although both were charged under the Espionage Act, she explains that they also changed the national conversationand in some cases changed laws on these respective government actions.

To Gibson, these high-profile cases are a far cry from the Ukraine scandal. Unlike Snowden and Kiriakou, who braved government retaliation in order to make their disclosures through non-protected channels, Trumps whistleblower stuck to protocol established by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA). The individual in question was also careful not to release any classified information in his statement, which was specifically meant for public consumption. Gibson concludes that while the whistleblower should not be subject to retaliation through the Espionage Act, history suggests theres no guarantee that they wont be.

A third article recently published in the Washington Examiner points out a likely parallel between Trumps whistleblower and FBI Associate Director Mark Felt (otherwise known as Deep Throat of Watergate fame). In the piece, whistleblower attorney and Watergate historian Mark Zaid argues that the DOJ whistleblower will likely follow in Felts footsteps and remain anonymous for decades to come.

Our ideal ending, Zaid told the Examiner, is that the identity of the whistleblower is never known and the individual continues on with their personal and professional life. Later on in the article, Zaid expounds upon Deep Throats commitment to privacy: Basically his identity remained secret until he decided otherwise. That was his right.

It is unclear whether, like Deep Throat, the Trump whistleblower will be able to maintain his privacy. If the past is any indication, however, his disclosures have the potential to alter the course of American history.

Link:
The History Briefing on Whistleblowers: Historical Perspective on the Ukraine Scandal - History News Network (HNN)

This week saw a shameful attempt by the Trump Administration to out the whistleblower who exposed the Trump/Ukraine story. Numerous right-wing media organizations and politicians sought to expose the person who brought this story to light, including the President himself.

This really should teach us why whistleblowers are so important to shining a light on corruption in the government. From the famous whistleblowers of the 1970s who exposed atrocities in Vietnam and the corruption of the Nixon Administration to more recent ones like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, whistleblowers have played a key part in providing information to the citizens of America.

We have also seen time and time again that those in power will do anything they can to prevent whistleblowers from exposing their secrets. While others in these situations have stopped at just threatening legal action against whistleblowers, Trump has threatened to expose the whistleblower entirely.

I hope this causes the American people to look deeply and realize that we need to increase protections on whistleblowers, because without them, who knows what we would know about the government. Without whistleblowers, Richard Nixons corrupt actions never would have been exposed and without Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, Americans would be in the dark about NSA surveillance.

Finally, to the people in the media who have worked to expose the current whistleblower, shame on you. This whistleblower is giving the American people information about a potential criminal act taking place in the White House and you are too busy focusing on defending the President to realize that.

It is even more shameful to see actual elected politicians trying to expose the whistleblower. These Congresspeople like Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) and Representative Jim Jordan (R, OH-04) should know better than to try to out a whistleblower.

To make this perfectly clear, no matter which side of the political aisle you are on, it is crucial that we protect whistleblowers.

Go here to read the rest:
Why Protecting Whistleblowers is More Important Than Ever - Saint Xavier University Student Media

A Q&A with J. Alex Halderman, who co-founded the nonprofit organization behind whats now the worlds largest certificate authority

The percentage of websites protected with HTTPS secure encryption indicated by the lock icon in the address bar of most browsershas jumped from just over 40% in 2016 to 80% today.

Thats largely due to the efforts of Lets Encrypt, a nonprofit certificate authority co-founded in 2013 by J. Alex Halderman, a University of Michigan professor of computer science and engineering.

By offering a free service, Lets Encrypt has turned the implementation of HTTPS from a costly, complicated process to an easy step thats within reach for all websites. The certificate authority is now the worlds largest, providing more HTTPS certificates than all other certificate authorities combined.

Halderman and his collaborators at Lets Encryptthe Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, Cisco and Stanford Universityhave published a paper detailing how the project came to fruition. They hope it serves as a model for streamlining other aspects of the internet infrastructure we all rely on every day.

What exactly is an HTTPS certificate authority?

Halderman: HTTPS is the protocol that web browsers use to talk to web servers over an encrypted connection. It provides confidentiality by preventing eavesdroppers from making sense of the data. It provides integrity by preventing malicious networks from changing the data. And it provides authentication by ensuring that youre talking to the server shown in the browsers address bar rather than an imposter. That last part is essential. If HTTPS didnt have authentication, an attacker could redirect the connection to a server they controlled and read or alter the data.

Authentication is also the tricky part, and thats where certificate authorities come in. Theyre a small group of organizations that web browsers trust to vouch for the identity of servers. To implement HTTPS, a website first has to prove to a certificate authority that it really is the server at a particular internet domain. Then the certificate authority issues the site a digitally signed certificate, which works like a drivers license to let browsers confirm its identity.

Why is encryption important on websites that dont handle sensitive information?

Halderman: When HTTPS was invented in the 1990s, it was intended mostly for credit card transactions and online banking. But since then, the internet has become a much more dangerous place. Edward Snowden showed us that governments were surveilling traffic on a global scale. Weve also seen instances where governments and others have changed internet traffic to attack the users computer, or to use their computer to attack third parties.

So today, encryption is important not just for financial transactions but for all online communications. Thats why its important to make it accessible to every website operator, and Lets Encrypt is doing just that. It has been particularly good at driving HTTPS adoption on smaller websites that dont have the resources to get a certificate through the traditional process.

Why has HTTPS been so difficult to implement?

Halderman: Traditionally, implementing HTTPS has required website operators to choose a certificate authority, prove their identity to them, pay as much as a few hundred dollars for a certificate, wait for it to arrive, then follow a complicated series of steps to install it. You have to repeat the process every year or two, and if you dont do it on time, your website might go down. So a lot of websites, particularly smaller ones, just left their sites unencrypted.

Lets Encrypt is a different kind of certificate authority that provides free certificates through an automated process that often only takes one click, and sometimes its an automatic part of website setup. That has driven a huge increase in the number of secured sites.

How can Lets Encrypt provide certificates for free?

Halderman: First, Lets Encrypt is nonprofit and is funded mostly by donations from large tech companies. Thats different from most certificate authorities. Secondly, and maybe counterintuitively, making certificates free dramatically reduces the cost of issuing them. Payment is a big source of friction that makes the process much harder to automate.

So once you remove that friction, certificates become much simpler to issue. Once we simplified the process, we were able to automate it by building a software system called the ACME protocol. ACME lowers the cost of each certificate Lets Encrypt issues to a fraction of a cent.

Why is your teams first paper about Lets Encrypt coming out four years after its launch?

Halderman: Because creating a new kind of certificate authority that gives out free certificates was a crazy idea. If we had written the paper before we built it, it wouldnt have gotten published. We had to prove that the economics would work, and there was no way to do that except to just build it.

Four years later, Lets Encrypt has been wildly successful. And I hope this paper, which looks back at how we built it and measures it impact on the web, can help spread some of the lessons weve learned to help other parts of the internet infrastructure work better.

What are some of those lessons and how can they help in other areas?

Halderman: Part of what makes Lets Encrypt work is that its a neutral party operating in the public interest rather than a product of any one large tech company. That makes it something everyone can trust and that no one company has an overriding stake in.

There are other places where authentication and cooperation are necessary. For example, ISPs often work together on routing protocols that direct information around the internet. But that process itself is not encrypted and is subject to attack. Thats a place where a model similar to Lets Encrypt could work well.

You mentioned that Lets Encrypt was a crazy idea in 2013. Today, it doesnt seem so crazy. How do you get from crazy idea to why didnt I think of that?

Halderman: By looking beyond the usual academic measures of success like number of papers or commercial startups. We can do that at Michigan because real-world impact is in the DNA of the College of Engineering. And to be honest, I dont think there are many other universities where this could have happened.

When we started this project, we knew that it wasnt going to become a traditional academic paper anytime soon. But people here saw that it was likely to be valuable to the world, and they supported the workeveryone from the colleagues who tenured me to the thesis committee for the PhD student who helped design ACME. That support was what enabled us to drive the project all the way to success.

The paper, Lets Encrypt: An Automated Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web, will be presented Nov. 14 at the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security in London.

Follow this link:
How Let's Encrypt doubled the internet's percentage of secure websites in four years - University of Michigan News

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a supremely talented actor,who knows how toimmerse himself in every role he plays, regardless of the genre. While sometimes he'staken on the part of a rebellious NSA contractor, he's at other times performed as the son of a U.S. president, a struggling cancer patient, and a dreamy-eyed greeting card writer. Because of his versatility, we decided to look at all of the actor's best movies. Rather than picking our own favorites, however, we decided to turn to the stats on IMDb.

RELATED:Joseph Gordon-Levitt's 10 Most Memorable Roles

The popular entertainment website has assigned every one ofJoseph Gordon-Levitt's films a star rating. This score is based on the votes of registered users on a scale of 1 to 10. We'll be using these to determinewhichfilms are better than the rest.

With that said, it's time to head to the movies; Here are Joseph Gordon-Levitt's best films, according to IMDb.

Inspired by real-life events, this 2016 thriller tells the story of a contractor who leaves his position at the National Security Agency and leaks classified information afterhe learnsthat the government is spying on non-threateningAmericans.This controversial move has the man Edward Snowden earning praise from some and hate from others.

Gordon-Levitt plays the titular character while Shailene Woodley plays his love interest, Lindsay Mills.Documentarian Laura Poitras is played by Melissa Leo while Zachary Quinto takes on journalist Glenn Greenwald.

This 2012 historical drama film has President Abraham Lincoln working hard to bring an end to the Civil War, abolish slavery, and bring peace back to the U.S.

Though Daniel Day-Lewis plays the president, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays his first son: Robert Todd Lincoln.

RELATED:Anne Hathaway's 10 Best Movies According To IMDB

The film ended up on many critics end-of-year top-10 lists and scoredmultiple Academy Awards and nominations.

This iconic '99 rom-com tells a modernized version of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. Rather than taking place in Padua in the 16th century, the plot is moved to an American high school in the '90s.

While Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger play the leading couple, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Cameron James, a new student at Padua High Schoolwho develops a huge crush on Bianca Stratford.

If "Where can Ifind teen nostalgia?" is the question, 10 Things I Hate About You is the answer.

Set in the future, this sci-fi film tells the story of a group of killers called "loopers" who eliminate people by sending them back in the time. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a member of this group (Joe). The problem comes afterhe exposed to the dark sideof his job when hisbosses send a future version of himself back to the past to be murdered.

Bruce Willisjoined the cast as Old Joe while Emily Blunt played a farm woman whom Joe eventuallyget intertwined withnamed Sara.

This coming-of-age drama tells of twoadults who deal with the aftermath of the sexual abuse they faced as kids on a basketball team. While one of these men becomes a male prostitute, the other starts to believe in a strange alien abduction fantasy.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the first of these characters while Brady Corbet plays the later of the two. Though the content is heavy, the story was well-received for being thought-provoking and even hopeful.

This comedy-drama tells the story of a public radio journalist who becomes diagnosed with schwannoma neurofibrosarcoma and a tumor. This has him undergoing chemotherapy and attempting to beat the survival odds, which are 50/50.

RELATED:Chris Evans' 10 Best Movies (According To IMDb)

While Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the lead character, Adam Lerner, Seth Rogen plays his best friend. Bryce Dallas Howard stars in the movie as Adam's girlfriend, and Anna Kendrick plays the role of his charming, young therapist.

The film was well-loved for dealing with the heavy realities of cancer while sprinkling in a nice dose of good-hearted humor.

500 Days of Summer is a comedy-drama that tells the story of a failed relationship through a series of nonlinear flashbacks.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the leading man, an architect whowastes his potential as a greeting card writer in L.A. Zooey Deschanel plays the girl he falls for, who is the office's newest assistant. Yes, she also shares histaste in music, and unluckily for him, she doesn't believe in love.

The film's high-reviews and universal love has earned itself a spot amongst the world's modern romantic classics.

Thisbeautifully designed anime film had Joseph Gordon-Levitt once again teaming up with Emily Blunt.

Released in 2013 in Japan and re-recorded and released to American audiences in 2014, the film tells the story of Jiro Horikoshi, who is known for designing Japanese fighter aircrafts.

Names including John Krasinski, Martin Short, and Stanley Tucci also show up on the cast list. Gordon-Levitt plays Horikoshi himself.

This 2012 DC Comics film has Batman jumping back into action after a cat burglar and terrorist threaten Gotham City with nuclear destruction.

Christian Bale reprised his role as Batman, Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman, and Tomy Hardy plays the terroristic Bane. Joseph Gordon-Levitt shows up as John Blake, a police officer who helps out Batman and holds a lot more optimism than him. It isrevealed thatGordon-Levitt'scharacter is a reference to Batman's comic sidekick, Robin.

The Dark Knight Rises garnered many positive reviews from critics who found the film to be as thought-out and exciting as ever.

Dom Cobb is a thief, but not inthe normal sense. Rather than stealing objects, he steals people's secrets by entering their dreams. Cobb's biggest mission yet comes when rather than taking memories, he attempts to plant an idea inside of someone's mind.

While Leonardo DiCaprio takes on the starring role, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays his cunning partner.

The film wasdeemed smart, exciting, and fully entrancing. It ended up on many critics year-end top-10 lists and received a handful of Academy Awards.

NEXT: Emily Blunts 10 Best Movies (According To IMDb)

Tags:IMDb

The rest is here:
Joseph Gordon-Levitts 10 Best Movies (According To IMDb) - Screen Rant

I was chatting with Terry, my writing partner, this morning. He was in the Intelligence Community for years, as was I; Terry on the analysis side, me in collection and later as a computer security researcher. Both of us had, at one time, an "Extended Background Investigation" clearance, the clearance you need for that stuff people like to say is "beyond top secret." (It's not, but that's another topic I explored in detail back when Edward Snowden turned.)

Now, Terry is a Democrat, pretty liberal, not at all impressed with Trump. But we were talking about Eric Ciaramella who was fired from the White House staff because he was leaking confidential information to the media. According to all the sources, he then returned to the CIA, where he currently works.

Which is, frankly, odd.

How, exactly, do you lose a job for security violations and return to the CIA? One would normally lose one's clearance, and even janitors and cafeteria workers at CIA are cleared.

Then there's LTC Alex Vindman, NSC staffer and active-duty Army officer. He has testified that he disobeyed orders, advised foreign governments to resist Trump, leaked internal information to others, and was actively working to subvert the president's foreign policy.

Now, Gods know I'm not a UCMJ lawyer, but if you look at the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that sounds like an Article 88 (Contempt to officials), Article 92 (Failure to obey order), and Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer). There's an argument to be made for Article 94 (Mutiny) as well.

So this too is odd. Normally, under these circumstances, a serving officer would at least be relieved and very possibly confined awaiting court-martial.

The third thing that struck us both was the complaint that Trump's conversations with Zelensky were being stored on a classified server.

Now if you look at the Department of State's regulations, conversations between American officials and foreign heads of state are automatically classified CONFIDENTIAL and NOFORN.

You normally at least if you're not Hillary or one of her minions store classified information on classified servers. Even confidential. (This one hasn't been as exciting since it became clear the Obama administration was using the same server for the same stuff.) Some people want to argue that this shouldn't be classified, but they miss a couple of points: first of all, classification is another one of those Article II powers of the president (see Executive Order 13526). If he says it's classified, it's classified. The second is that the White House was concerned about stuff being leaked and warned Vindman explicitly about talking about it.

So why is it surprising that material is being stored on a classified server? Why the hell was it ever stored on anything BUT a classified server?

The point here is that all of these things would, in the normal course of events, be security violations punishable by everything from actually losing a job to extended terms in Kansas making small rocks.

Why was this not the normal course of events?

I'd really like someone in Congress to ask those questions.

Read more from the original source:
The Real Mystery About Eric Ciaramella Is How He Got Rehired to the CIA - PJ Media

The exiled whistleblower, made famous in 2013 for revealing the extent of US government data snooping, was easily one of the most high-profile speakers at an event that demonstrates an increasing awareness of technology's potentialfor better or worse.

Ping explained that 5G and AI, recurring topics throughout the whole week, represented a "tipping point" for information and communications technology. Specifically, he touted "5G+X"the "X" being technologies like AI, VR and AR, among othersas the "new electricity." Huawei, which is investing $1.5 billion into its 5G+X developer program over the next five years, is not alone in this sentiment.

"[Businesses and consumers] haven't really yet discovered exactly how revolutionary this technology truly is," said Ronan Dunne, executive vice president and CEO ofVerizon Consumer Group, who appeared on the same stage the following day. "It's so powerful, that in truth, the best way to think about it is as a wholly new technology, ushering in a new era of transformation."

From a VC perspective, the 5G space still remains nascent. So far in 2019,around $127 million has been invested across 28 VC deals for startups explicitly operating in the 5G space, according to the PitchBook Platform. Nevertheless, this figure exceeds both the $90 million raised last year across 20 VC deals and the same figure funneled into 24 such deals in 2017.

He added that the number of investors has also become more diverse in terms of geography: "Last year, the huge shadow of [Japanese telecom giant]SoftBank was almost kind of putting the rest of the VC in the shade. I felt a renewed energy on Monday when I was in a room with about 500 of the leading ambassadors in the world."

Another related area of focus was profitability. One key panel question asked was whether Silicon Valley was "pivoting to profits." Ravi Viswanathan, founder ofNewView Capital, noted thatas in previous yearsthere is once again a focus on the distance to profitability, particularly in the wake of WeWork.

"I actually do think it's very healthy because it forces boards, management teams, investors and everyone in all the other constituencies to really look within themselves and make sure these companies become durable," he said. "And if they aren't durable, then maybe they're not a public company, maybe it's some other exit." Meanwhile, Rytis Vitkauskas, a partner atLightspeed, said it was less a matter of venture capital pivoting toward profitability and more of a "focus [on] how sensible the growth [of startups] is and the efficiency."

Featured images clockwise from top left:Edward Snowden (Piaras Mdheach/CC BY 2.0)Guo Ping (David Fitzgerald/CC BY 2.0)Rytis Vitkauskas (Harry Murphy/CC BY 2.0)Margrethe Vestager, European Commission (Sam Barnes/CC BY 2.0)

Originally posted here:
The many faces of disruption: Web Summit 2019 key takeaways - PitchBook News & Analysis