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

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)

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

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