What is Encryption, and Why Are People Afraid of It?

With recent acts of terrorism in Paris and Lebanon, news media and government have been using the word encryption as if its somehow to blame. Nonsense. Encryption is easy to understand, and if youre not using it, you should be.

Like many technologies, encryption has the potential to be misused, but that does not make it dangerous. And it doesnt mean that people who use it are dangerous or bad. But since its so commonly misunderstood and currently a media boogeyman, a few minutes with How-To Geek will help get you caught up.

While computer scientists, developers, and cryptographers have created far smarter and complex methods for doing so, at its heart, encryption is simplytaking some information that makes sense and scrambling it so it become gibberish. Turning it back into real informationvideo files, images, or simple messagescan only be done by decrypting it back from gibberish using a method called a cipher, usually relying onimportant piece of information called a key.

Already there area lot of unusual words being thrown around. If youve ever written in a secret code when you were a child, youve encrypted a sentence.A cipher can be as simple as moving a letter down in the alphabet. For example, if we take the following sentence:

This is really geeky

With this simple encryption, A becomes B, and so on. This becomes:

Uijt jt sfbmmz hfflz

If you want to make it more difficult to understand, you can easily represent letters as numbers, when A is represented by a 1, and Z by 26. With our cipher, we simply add one to our number:

208919 919 1851121225 7551125

And then when we move our letters position with our A-becomes-B-method, our encrypted message now looks like this:

2191020 1020 1962131326 8661226

In our example, our method, or cipher, is to change letters to certain numbers and add to that number to encrypt. If we wanted to, we could call ourkeythe actual information that A = 2, Y = 26, and Z = 1.

With a code this simple, sharing keys isnt necessary as any codebreaker could decipher ourcode and figure out themessage. Thankfully, comparing modern encryption methods to this is like comparingan abacus to an iPad. Intheorythere are alot of similarities, but the methods used haveyears of study and genius applied to making them richer and more challenging to decrypt without the proper keysthat is, by the users who are doing the encrypting. Its almost impossible to decrypt using brute force methods or by reassembling data back into something that looks useful, so hackers and bad guys look to humans for the weak link in encryption, not the encryption methods themselves.

Its no secret that plenty of governments get the willies when they think aboutstrong encryption. Modern computers can encrypt text messaging, images, data files, even whole partitions on hard drives and the operating systems that run them, effectively locking out anyone with the keys needed to decrypt the information on them. These could contain anything, and when it could theoretically beanything, imaginations tend to run wild. They contain stolen nuclear codes, child pornography, all kinds of stolen government secrets or, more likely, your tax documents, bank transactions, kids pictures, and other personal information you dont want others to have access to.

A lot of attention was recently drawn to the ISIL-associated terrorism suspects using encrypted methods of communication with the popular messaging service WhatsApp. The boogeyman here is strong encryption allows spooky people to communicate about who-knows-what and many prominent government and intelligence officials are taking advantage of the situation, shaping narrative to say encryption is for bad people, terrorists, and hackers. Never waste a good crisis, as the saying goes.

Many government powers have approached the Googles and Apples of the world, asking them to create encryption with secret backdoor decryption methodsclosed-source methods of encryption that hide somethingnefariousor have master keys to cipher and decrypt anything using thatparticular method.

The current CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, was quoted as saying You cant have a backdoor thats only for the good guys. Because, basically, an intentionally engineered flaw like a backdoor encryption method totally weakens the integrity of a technology we use in many aspects of our lives. Theres absolutely no guarantee that simply because something isdesigned for the good guys to use, that bad guys wont figure out how to use it. It goes without saying once this happens, all data using these methods is no longer secure.

Without putting on our tinfoil hats and getting super political, historically, governments have a tendency of being afraid of their people, and do whatever they think they can get away with to maintain control. So, unsurprisingly, the idea of these little informational black boxes created by strong encryption makes them nervous.

Its probablypretty clear to you faster than you can say the terrorists have won putting a backdoor in an infrastructure as basic as encryption would make life for us much worse, since strong encryption standards are used in web browsers, email, banking, credit card transactions, and password storage. Making those less secure for all of us just isnt a good idea.

Encryption, thankfully, is becoming the default. If youve ever noticed that little lock icon in your web browsercongratulations! Youre using encryption to send and receive data from that website. You dontfeel like a bad guy, doyou?

Basically, by establishing a secure connection, your computer uses a public key to send scrambled information to the remote system, which it then decodes using a private key (since the public key can be downloaded by anyone, but only decrypted using the private key). Since it can be difficult to ensure that nobody can intercept your messages, emails, or banking data, but encryption can turn your information into gibberish that they cant use, so your transactions remain safe. Chances are, youre already doing lots of encrypted message and data transmission and you didnt even realize it.

Nearly everyone in tech is awareit needs to simply be standard and is pushing the idea of encryption by default. Simply because you dont have anything to hide doesnt mean you shouldnt value your privacy, particularly in these days when preventing cybercrime, data theft, and hacking scandals isbecoming more and more critical to our safety and financial well-being.

Speaking simply, computers and the Internet have allowed us to open ourselves up and become more vulnerable than ever before to these privacy concerns, and encryption is one of the only methods of keeping yourself safe. Many years ago, if you were speaking to someone face to face and saw nobody around, you could feel reasonably secure that nobody was eavesdropping on you. Now, without encryption, theres basically no privacy in any kind of communication, at all, ever.

When should a normal user incorporate encryption into their digital life? Certainly, if any of your messaging services or accounts offer HTTPS (HTTP over SSL, an encryption standard) you should opt-in. In this day and age, you shouldnt even have to opt-in; it should be on by default! If a service does not allow for encrypted connections and it allows you to send any kind of sensitive data (credit card numbers, family members names, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, etc.) simply opt not to usethat website. But realistically, any modern website with a login will most likely create a secure, encrypted connection.

Should you keep thepictures, documents and other important files on your PC in an encrypted container or disk? Perhaps. You can do thisby using encrypted file containers or by lockingwhole disks using software. Some years back,popular cross-platform encryption software TrueCrypt suddenly and mysteriously asked users to stop using their software, insisting their product was insecure, and shutdown all development.In a final message to their users,TrueCrypturged them to migrate their data tothe Microsoft product, Bitlocker,now part of some versions of Windows. TrueCrypt was a standard tool for whole disk encryption, along with other software like bcrypt or Filevault. Whole disk encryption is also possible using BitLocker, or, if you prefer open-source methods, by using LUKS onLinux systems, or the successor to TrueCrypt, VeraCrypt.

You very likely do not need to encrypt the files that are actually onyour PC to stop hackers and data thieves from taking them. It is not a bad idea to do so to keep important files in a crypt to keep them out of the hands of other people who may get a chance to use your computer. Encryption doesnt need to be spooky or dangerous; it can simply be thought of as a digital privacy fence, and a way to keep honest people honest. Simply because you like your neighbors doesnt mean you always want them to be able to watch you!

The same can be said for all digital messaging services, whether theyre on your phone, tablet, or on your PC. If youre not using encryption, you have little to no guarantee that your messages arent being intercepted by others, nefarious or not. If this matters to youand perhaps it should matter to all of usyou have an increasing number of options. It is worth noting that some services like iMessage from Apple send encrypted messages by default, but communicate through Apple servers, and they could conceivably be read and stored there.

Hopefully weve helped to dispel some of the misinformation surrounding this misunderstood technology. Simply because someone chooses to keep their information private doesnt mean that they are doing somethingsinister. Allowing the conversation about encryption to be entirely about terrorism and not about basic privacy and prevention of identity theft is fundamentally bad for all of us. Its not a thing to be feared or misunderstood, but rather a tool that all of us should use as we see fit, without the stigma of being used only for evil purposes.

If youre interested in learning more about encryption methods, here are some How-To Geek classics, as well as some software that we recommend to start incorporating encryption into your digital life.

How to Set Up BitLocker Encryption on Windows

3 Alternatives to the Now-Defunct TrueCrypt for Your Encryption Needs

HTG Explains: When Should You Use Encryption?

Image Credits:Christiaan Colen,Mark Fischer,Intel Free Press,Sarah(Flickr),Valery Marchive,Walt Jabsco.

More here:
What is Encryption, and Why Are People Afraid of It?

How to Enable Full-Disk Encryption on Windows 10

Windows 10 sometimes uses encryption by default, and sometimes doesntits complicated. Heres how to check if your Windows 10 PCs storage is encrypted and how to encrypt it if it isnt.Encryption isnt just about stopping the NSAits about protecting your sensitivedata in case you ever lose your PC, which is something everyoneneeds.

Unlike all other modern consumer operating systemsmacOS, Chrome OS, iOS, and AndroidWindows 10 still doesnt offer integrated encryption tools to everyone. You may have to pay for the Professional edition of Windows 10 or use a third-party encryption solution.

RELATED: Windows 8.1 Will Start Encrypting Hard Drives By Default: Everything You Need to Know

Many new PCs that ship with Windows 10 will automatically have Device Encryption enabled.This feature was first introduced in Windows 8.1, andthere are specific hardware requirements for this. Not every PC will have this feature, but some will.

Theres another limitation, tooit only actually encrypts your driveif you sign into Windowswitha Microsoft account. Your recovery key is then uploaded to Microsofts servers. This will help you recover your files if you ever cant log into your PC. (This is also why the FBIlikely isnt too worried about this feature, but were just recommendingencryption as a means to protect your data fromlaptop thieves here. If youre worried about the NSA, you may want to use a different encryption solution.)

Device Encryption will also be enabled if you sign into an organizations domain. For example, you might sign into a domain owned by your employer or school. Your recovery key would then be uploaded to your organizations domain servers. However, this doesnt apply to the average persons PConly PCs joined to domains.

To check if Device Encryption is enabled, open the Settings app, navigate to System > About, and look for a Device encryption setting at the bottom of the About pane. If you dont see anything about Device Encryption here, your PC doesnt support Device Encryption and its not enabled. If Device Encryption is enabledor if you can enable it by signing in with a Microsoft accountyoull see a message saying so here.

RELATED: Should You Upgrade to the Professional Edition of Windows 10?

If Device Encryption isnt enabledor if you want a more powerful encryption solution that can also encrypt removable USB drives, for exampleyoull want to use BitLocker. Microsofts BitLocker encryption tool has been part of Windows for several versions now, and its generally well regarded. However, Microsoft still restricts BitLocker to Professional, Enterprise, and Education editions of Windows 10.

BitLocker is most secure on a computer that contains Trusted Platform Module (TPM) hardware, which most modern PCs do. You can quickly check whether your PC has TPM hardware from within Windows, or check with your computers manufacturer if youre not sure.If you built your own PC, you may able to add a TPM chip to it. Search for a TPM chip thats sold as an add-on module. Youll need one that supports the exact motherboard inside your PC.

RELATED: How to Use BitLocker Without a Trusted Platform Module (TPM)

Windows normally says BitLocker requires a TPM, but theres a hidden option that allows you to enable BitLocker without a TPM. Youll have to use a USB flash drive as a startup key that must be present every boot if you enable this option.

If you already have a Professional edition of Windows 10 installed on your PC, you can search for BitLocker in the Start menu and use the BitLocker control panel to enable it. If you upgraded for free from Windows 7 Professional or Windows 8.1 Professional, you should have Windows 10 Professional.

If you dont have a Professional edition of Windows 10, you can pay $99 to upgrade your Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Professional. Just open the Settings app, navigate to Update & security > Activation, and click the Go to Store button.Youll gain access to BitLocker and the other features that Windows 10 Professional includes.

Security expert Bruce Schneier also likes a proprietary full-disk encryption tool for Windows named BestCrypt. Its fully functional on Windows 10 with modern hardware. However, this tool costs $99the same price as an upgrade to Windows 10 Professionalso upgrading Windows to take advantage of BitLocker may be a better choice.

RELATED: 3 Alternatives to the Now-Defunct TrueCrypt for Your Encryption Needs

Spending another $99 just to encrypt your hard drive for some additional security can be a tough sell when modern Windows PCs often only cost a few hundred bucks in the first place. You dont have to pay the extra money for encryption, because BitLocker isnt the only option. BitLocker is the most integrated, well-supported optionbut there are other encryption tools you can use.

The venerable TrueCrypt, an open-source full-disk encryption tool that is no longer being developed, has some issues with Windows 10 PCs. It cant encrypt GPT system partitions and boot them using UEFI, a configuration most Windows 10 PCs use. However, VeraCryptan open-source full-disk encryption tool based on the TrueCrypt source codedoes support EFI system partition encryption as of versions 1.18a and 1.19.

In other words, VeraCrypt should allow you to encrypt your Windows 10 PCs system partition for free.

RELATED: How to Secure Sensitive Files on Your PC with VeraCrypt

TrueCrypts developers did famously shut down development and declare TrueCrypt vulnerable and unsafe to use, but the jury is still out on whether this is true.Much of the discussion around this centers on whether the NSA and other security agencies have a way to crack this open-source encryption. If youre just encrypting your hard drive so thieves cant access your personal files if they steal your laptop, you dont have to worry about this. TrueCrypt should be more than secure enough. The VeraCrypt project has also made security improvements, and should potentially be more secure than TrueCrypt. Whether youre encrypting just a few files or your entire system partition, its what we recommend.

Wed like to see Microsoft give more Windows 10 users access to BitLockeror at least extend Device Encryption so it can be enabled on more PCs. Modern Windows computers should have built-in encryption tools, just like all other modern consumer operating systems do. Windows 10 users shouldnt have to pay extra or hunt down third-party software to protect their important data if their laptops are ever misplaced or stolen.

View original post here:
How to Enable Full-Disk Encryption on Windows 10

Chelsea Manning jailed for "not believing in the Grand Jury …

Yesterday I took a look at the upcoming hearing where Chelsea Manning was facing possible contempt of court charges for failing to answer questions before a grand jury in Virginia. At the time I speculated that the judge might be hesitant to toss Manning in jail (for up to a maximum of 18 months or the end of the grand jurys impanelment) just because of the craptacular media circus that would follow. It turns out that Virginia federal court Judge Claude Hilton had no such qualms and he promptly turned around and threw Manning in the slammer after he continued to refuse to answer. (NY Post)

Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst who was convicted for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks, was thrown in jail Friday for refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating the group.

Manning was taken into custody on contempt charges following a brief hearing in which she informed Virginia federal court Judge Claude Hilton that she had no intention of testifying.

Saying she objected to the secrecy behind grand jury proceedings, Manning told the judge she will accept whatever you bring upon me. She also said she told everything she knows to her court martial.

Manning can file all the appeals he likes, but Judge Hilton stated flatly that Manning would stay in jail until either he agreed to testify or the grand jury wraps up the case. I dont see any indication of how long this particular jury has already been in the box, so its tough to say when Manning might be getting out.

I wouldnt feel too badly for Manning in any case. As I speculated yesterday, this is precisely the type of drama and publicity hes seemed to crave since his release. You can hear it in the statements Manning made before the court. Saying he would accept whatever you bring upon me sounds like a line straight out of central casting for the soon-to-be martyr thats about to be burned at the stake by the evil inquisition.

Its a play thats already working, to be sure. Manning is getting just what he wants from outlets like Gizmodo. And theyre fully on board with the idea that Manning can protest the use of grand juries. (Emphasis added)

Why Chelsea Manning Decided to Go to Jail in Protest

Chelsea Manning is not accused of committing any new crime. But she is now a prisoner of the U.S. government once again and may remain one for up to 18 months

Manning, whose right to remain silent was supplanted as part of the grand jury process, was subpoenaed last month in the U.S. Justice Departments not-so-sealed investigation into Julian Assange. Her defiance of this secret inquisition, however, is not about protecting the WikiLeaks founder at all.

Manning says she is resisting because she, like many other politically minded Americans, believes grand juries are an illegal instrument designed to aide prosecutions on fishing expeditions; a tool for robbing witnesses of their constitutional rights that has historically been used against peaceful political activists by men in power who would label these activists enemies of the state.

How dramatic! An inquisition has made an activist a prisoner of the government, robbing them of their constitutional rights. Thats pretty much a movie treatment ready to submit to Hollywood with little further development required.

Let me just say that I could come up with a few complaints about the grand jury process myself. While I understand the need for secrecy and detailed investigations that can stretch on for months or years, the process is clunky and can result in a lot of misunderstandings. But its also the law of the land. If you are called in to testify and theres reasonable cause to believe that you have information relevant to the case, you have to answer the questions or be prepared to be punished for failing to comply. Im sure many people arent thrilled with the process, but if you dont like it you should start lobbying to change the laws.

In this case, there may be something big cooking regarding Julian Assange, in a case that could have serious implications for both national security and future questions about the limits of press freedom when it comes to revealing secret intelligence data. Manning is obviously in a position to offer some insights on that. And there was no need for him to fear giving answers because the prosecutors already granted him full immunity for any testimony he gave. (Hes also already protected by double jeopardy rules anyway.) This entire episode is looking more and more like a stunt.

I will disagree with Gizmodo on one other point, however. They heavily imply that theres no threat to America or national security going on here. I would argue theres definitely a threat to the nation in play. And hed still be in Leavenworth if Barack Obama hasnt commuted his sentence.

Continued here:
Chelsea Manning jailed for "not believing in the Grand Jury ...

2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg "troubled" by clemency for …

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who launched a an exploratory committee in January to run for president in 2020 as a progressive Democrat, is criticizing former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden for disclosing classified information.

Buttigieg left his day job as mayor to serve as a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve in Afghanistan in 2014, before returning to office. He said while deployed he was expected to read intelligence briefs before going on patrol and is criticizing Manning and Snowden, saying they abused their access to classified information.

Buttigieg told CBS News Radio on the sidelines of the South by Southwest Festival where he spoke over the weekend that he was "troubled" by former President Obama's decision to commute the 35-year prison sentence for Chelsea Manning days before he left office in 2017.

Manning was convicted of disclosing classified government and military documents to Wikileaks. Manning was arrested in 2010 as Bradley Manning, before announcing she was transgender.

Manning was ordered to return to jail last Friday after refusing to testify to a grand jury investigating Wikileaks.

Buttigieg also took aim at Snowden's leaks, but didn't say whether he thought Snowden should be returned to the U.S. from Russia, where he is avoiding prosecution. Buttigieg called this an "international diplomatic challenge."

"I certainly agree that we've learned things about abuses and that one way or another that needed to come out," Buttigieg said. "But in my view, the way for that to come out is through Congressional oversight, not through a breach of classified information."

The 37-year-old Harvard graduate and Rhodes scholar, who married his boyfriend Chasten Glezman last June, also blasted a federal judge's ruling last week allowing the Trump administration to continue restrictions on transgender troops.

"Anybody who is competent to serve this country, and wants to do so and is willing to put their life on the line should have nothing but the support of their president, of their government," he said.

Buttigieg has also been speaking out against the former governor of his home state Vice President Mike Pence for what he calls a "social extremist ideology" attacking gay rights.

"I don't think he could possibly be a good president, and I don't think he's benefited our nation as Vice President either," Buttigieg said.

Buttigieg supports Supreme Court reform, comprehensive against climate change, and universal health care. But recent polls show support for Buttigieg among Democratic voters at less than one percent.

See original here:
2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg "troubled" by clemency for ...

Did Edward Snowden Break His Oath? | The New Yorker

Should we just stop talking about any form of amnesty for Edward Snowden, because he swore an oath and broke it? In a piece for Slate titled Why Snowden Wont (And Shouldnt) Get Clemency, Fred Kaplan mentions my suggestion, in a piece for the site, that Jimmy Carters pardoning of Vietnam draft dodgers offers a useful parallel when thinking of the legal situation of Edward Snowden. Kaplan writes:

This suggestion is mind-boggling on several levels. Among other things, Snowden signed an oath, as a condition of his employment as an NSA contractor, not to disclose classified information, and knew the penalties for violating the oath. The young men who evaded the draft, either by fleeing to Canada or serving jail terms, did so in order to avoid taking an oath to fight a war that they opposeda war that was over, and widely reviled, by the time that Carter pardoned them.

There are no such extenuating circumstances favoring forgiveness of Snowden.

This is an odd and flawed argumentlogically and legally, but also historically and factually. The errors illustrate how we tend to misremember the past, and misjudge its passions when comparing them to our own.

There is also the question of why an oath matters, in a different way than a serious federal law like the Selective Service Actbut first the facts.

To begin with, did Snowden sign an oathnot to disclose classified information? He says that he did not, and that does not appear to have been contradicted. Snowden told the Washington Posts Barton Gellman that the document he signed, as what Kaplan calls a condition of his employment, was Standard Form 312, a contract in which the signatory says he will accept the terms, rather than swearing to them. By signing it, Snowden agreed that he was aware that there were federal laws against disclosing classified information. But the penalties for violating agreement alone are civil: for example, the government can go after any book royalties he might get for publishing secrets.

Snowden had taken an oaththe Oath of Office, or appointment affidavit, given to all federal employees [Note: to clarify, this would have been when he was an employee earlier, for the C.I.A.]:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Now, some would argue (and it would have to be an argument, not an elision) that he violated this oath in revealing what he did; Snowden told Gellman that the revelations were how he kept itprotecting the Constitution from the officials at the N.S.A., which was assaulting it. Either way this is just not an oath, on the face of it, about disclosing classified information.

What about the draft dodgers? Kaplan considers it an extenuating factor that they acted before taking an oath to join the military. Legally speaking, this is circular: the criminal act in draft-dodging was refusing to join the military. How could it be extenuated by the fact that it took place? In any event, except when talking about, say, mail fraud, the notion that the comparative severity of crimes can be measured by the number of papers signed beforehand is a strange one (murderers dont usually sign non-murder agreements). Still, as it happens, a lot of dodgers did put their names on a lot of documents along the way. Some tried every trick in the book to get a deferment, including submitting false statements. Even before being examined by a draft board, they would have had to fill out Form 100, a questionnaire to help determine their draft classification. This is no civil contract; the signature line mentions criminal penalties, and there are bonus warnings for anyone seeking conscientious objector status. In that sense, it is more stringent than Form 312. (If by oath Kaplan just means a harshly worded document, they both count.) Young men tried to evade the draft by, among other things, lying on this form. Some were prosecuted for doing so, and then some were pardoned for the act.

Carters pardon was broad: you didnt have to show that youd opposed the war. Not everybody who tried to get out of the draft was motivated by principle, though draft resistance was integral to the movement to end the war. (And I do think, lest this be misconstrued, was a just cause deserving a pardon.)

Theres still the question of oaths. Did all of the young men we, as a country, forgave manage to avoid taking an oath, as Kaplan writes? Soldiers do take an oath, to support and defend the Constitution and obey their officers. (Snowden would have taken this during his brief time in the military.) What about deserters, who broke it?

Carters pardon did not include deserters. But deserters had a chance under an even earlier clemency offer, which President Ford extended for a several months starting in September, 1974when the war was not entirely over, and some Americans and more Vietnamese were still dying. It had conditions, as any deal with Snowden certainly would; those who hadnt served time in prison had to work in public-service jobs, for example in a hospital, for two years. (Sports-historical footnote: the chairman of the clemency board was Charles Goodell, whose son Roger is now commissioner of the N.F.L.) Still, there was mercy.

In other words, the historical reality appears to be pretty much the opposite of what Kaplan writes: Snowden, as far as one can tell, didnt take an oath not to disclose classified information, and some Vietnam-era deserters who received clemency did take and violate their own oath.

Introducing the plan, Ford spoke of his hope that it would be a step toward a calmer and cooler appreciation of our individual rights and responsibilities. That is as a pretty clear statement of what we can also hope to get from the Snowden case.

Fords clemency offer came a month after hed pardoned Nixona man of many oaths. A Times story from 1974 quoted Ford as saying, at a press conference, Well, the only connection between those two cases is the effort that I made in the one to heal the wounds involving charges against Mr. Nixon and my honest and conscientious effort to heal the wounds for those who had deserted military service or dodged the draft.

Those wounds were still unhealed during the Carter Presidency, and, decades later, some never have closed up. Kaplan writes that the war was, by 1977, widely reviled, but so, in many quarters, were draft evaders. Whether Bill Clinton and George Bush had legally avoided being sent overseas was still a contentious issue in both mens Presidencies. What if, at the time, we were still jailing and hunting down fugitive draft evaders? We are missing something about the history and use of pardons and amnesties, here and abroad, if we act as though they only come into play after all the fight has gone out of an issue.

Bushs father pardoned half a dozen officials (and oath-of-office takers) for crimes related to the Iran-Contra scandal, among them Caspar Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense, for the promise-based crime of perjury. Not all amnesties and pardons are good for the countrytacit ones, like those for torture in the war on terror, can preclude necessary debate. But its a fantasy to say that no one in America has ever been allowed to avoid going to jail for a serious crime when it is seen as best for the country (and sometimes when it is not). As Ive written before, the government could further its own practical interests by means of an amnesty, pardon, or plea bargain, toothere are ways Snowden could help. Similarly, Snowdens presence in Russia, of all places, is seen as a dirty affront. We might, then, want to get him out of there, which is what he appears to want, too. (Joe Nocera has a good column on the case for Brazil.)

Kaplan says that some of what Snowden revealed isnt useful for Americans to know; the extent to which that is so (and is harmful) is debatable. But Kaplan oddly includes on his list things like the worldwide collection of cell-location data, which has entangled and violated the rights of Americans. (He also errs in writing that the revelations dont involve any documents detailing the cyber-operations of any other countries, something Britains GCHQ would be surprised to hear.) Nevertheless, there is no question at this point that the usefulness has been great, as even the President would concede.

That brings us back to a slight mystery: the dispositive quality of oathiness. Why is the idea that Snowden took a particular oath so often brought up as an argument against some deal that would allow him to come back to America and stay out of prison? Its not really about his legal jeopardy. Of course Snowden broke lawsthats why were even having a conversation about amnesty. If he hadnt, he wouldnt need it. Saying that its ridiculous to talk about amnesty when hes committed serious crimes is like saying theres no point in talking about divorce because someone is married.

Bringing up the oath point is really meant as a commentary on Snowdens character. It is itself an oath, in another sensean interjection, an outburst of anger. There are a lot of people in the government, and public, who are simply dismayed by Snowdens actions, and by everything about him, down to his glasses and haircut. The oath he swore was supposed to be humbling, and he is presumptuous. The discussions about him become choked with rageeven as the conversation he alone started and made possible becomes ever louder and clearer.

Photograph by AP.

Read more of our coverage of government surveillance programs.

See the original post:
Did Edward Snowden Break His Oath? | The New Yorker

NYFF: Edward Snowden Doc ‘Citizenfour’ Reveals Existence of …

MOVIES

5:35 PM PDT 10/10/2014bySeth Abramovitch, Chris O'Falt

A second National Security Agency whistleblower exists within the ranks of government intelligence.

That bombshell comes toward the end ofCitizenfour,a new documentary from filmmaker Laura Poitras about NSAinformantEdward Snowden that had its world premiere on Friday at the New York Film Festival.

In the key scene, journalist Glenn Greenwald visits Snowden at a hotel room in Moscow. Fearing they are being taped, Greenwald communicates with Snowden via pen and paper.

While some of the exchanges are blurred for the camera, it becomes clear that Greenwald wants to convey that another government whistleblower higher in rank than Snowden has come forward.

The revelation clearly shocks Snowden, whose mouth drops open when he reads the details of the informant's leak.

Also revealed by Greenwald is the fact that 1.2 million individuals are currently on a U.S. government watch-list. Among them is Poitras herself.

And the surprises don't end there. Near the end of the film, which received a rousing standing ovation, it is revealed thatLindsay Mills,Snowden'sdancer girlfriend of 10 years, has been living with Snowden in Moscow.

When Poitras went to Moscow in July to show Snowden an early cut of the film, she shot footage of the two cooking dinner together, which appears in the final cut.

Snowdenfled to Russia after the U.S. government revoked his passport and put pressure on other governments not to grant him asylum.

After spending 39 days in a Moscow airport, Snowden was granted a one-year asylum from President Vladimir Putin. He is now in the country on a three-year residency permit.

Poitras took the stage at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall following the screening, flanked by Greenwald, with whom she partnered on a pair of explosive stories inThe Guardian and Washington Post aboutSnowden'ssurveillance disclosures in June 2014.

Also joining them was Jeremy Scahill, their partner on the website The Intercept, and Snowden's father and stepmother. Snowden's father thanked Poitras for having made Citizenfour, which he deemed a "wonderful piece of work."

Poitras kept her comments following the screening to a minimum, and thanked her crew and Snowden. Instead it was Greenwald and Scahillwho did most of the talking, with Scahillat one point describingPoitrasas "the most bad-ass director alive, period."

Before the screening, Poitras told The Hollywood Reporter that she will never forget the moment when Snowden -- who was so young Greenwald initially doubted his authenticity -- said he was willing to go on the record with his allegations.

"One of the most intense moments was when Snowden told us his identity would not remain anonymous, and I knew that somebody was really, really putting their life on the line," Poitrassaid.

Oct. 13, 2:19 p.m. A previous version of this story stated that Greenwald revealed 1.2 million Americans were present on the watchlist. THR regrets the error.

Read the original:
NYFF: Edward Snowden Doc 'Citizenfour' Reveals Existence of ...

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero? – Ethics Unwrapped

In 2013, computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, Edward Snowden released confidential government documents to the press about the existence of government surveillance programs. According to many legal experts, and the U.S. government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of state secrets as an act of treason. Yet despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his whistleblowing by stating that he had a duty to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them. According to Snowden, the governments violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality.

Many agreed with Snowden. Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project defended his actions as ethical, arguing that he acted from a sense of public good. Radack said, Snowden may have violated a secrecy agreement, which is not a loyalty oath but a contract, and a less important one than the social contract a democracy has with its citizenry. Others argued that even if he was legally culpable, he was not ethically culpable because the law itself was unjust and unconstitutional.

The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, did not find Snowdens rationale convincing. Holder stated, He broke the law. He caused harm to our national security and I think that he has to be held accountable for his actions.

Journalists were conflicted about the ethical implications of Snowdens actions. The editorial board of The New York Times stated, He may have committed a crimebut he has done his country a great service. In an Op-ed in the same newspaper, Ed Morrissey argued that Snowden was not a hero, but a criminal: by leaking information about the behavior rather than reporting it through legal channels, Snowden chose to break the law. According to Morrissey, Snowden should be prosecuted for his actions, arguing that his actions broke a law intended to keep legitimate national-security data and assets safe from our enemies; it is intended to keep Americans safe.safe.

1. What values are in conflict in this case? What harm did Snowden cause? What benefits did his actions bring?

2. Do you agree that Snowdens actions were ethically justified even if legally prohibited? Why or why not? Make an argument by weighing the competing values in this case.

3. If you were in Snowdens position, what would you have done and why?

4. Would you change your position if you knew that Snowdens leak would lead to a loss of life among CIA operatives? What about if it would save lives?

5. Is there a circumstance in which you think whistleblowing would be ethically ideal? How about ethically prohibited?

Causing harm explores the different types of harm that may be caused to people or groups and the potential reasons we may have for justifying these harms.

Continued here:
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero? - Ethics Unwrapped

Email Encryption Options for MDaemon Email Server

MDaemon uses a layered approach to email encryption for safely sending your emails and attachments. On the client-side, MDaemon Webmail users can enable basic encryption features when sending emails and attachments within Webmail. On the server-side, Administrators have the ability to use encryption, decryption, and basic key management capabilities.

MDaemon Webmail uses HTTPS connections to power its webmail encryption

MDaemon supports Open PGP to power its server-side email encryption

When composing a message, MDaemon Webmail users can use the Advanced Options screen to instruct MDaemon to encrypt the message, retrieve their public key, or retrieve the public key of another user (if available). This greatly simplifies the process of sending secure, encrypted email using MDaemon PGP.

On the server side, OpenPGP for MDaemon has been added to give administrators the ability to use encryption, decryption, and basic key management capabilities through OpenPGP support.

This additional layer helps administrators who want to ensure user compliance by managing encryption settings at the server versus the user implemented client level. Also, MDaemon's Content Filter now contains actions to encrypt and decrypt messages. And finally, server-side encryption capabilities are beneficial when using email archiving with MDaemon.

MDaemon Webmail has a unique setting that allows it to be used as basic public key server. When this feature is enabled, Webmail will honor requests for your users' public keys using a specially formatted URL. Additionally, MDaemon's OpenPGP feature supports collection of public keys over DNS. This helps to automate the process of exchanging encryption keys.

MDaemon's OpenPGP features can verify embedded signatures found within messages. This helps the recipient ensure that the message is authentic. MDaemon Webmail will display an icon or text label for verified messages. Webmail will also display labels for messages with valid DKIM signatures, messages decrypted by OpenPGP, and messages signed with an OpenPGP key.

Automated Encryption Key Exchange allows the process of exchanging public keys for OpenPGP to take place during the SMTP message delivery process. When this feature is enabled, authorized users will no longer need to manually send their public key to another user from whom they wish to receive encrypted email.

See the original post:
Email Encryption Options for MDaemon Email Server

Julian Assange | Biography & Facts | Britannica.com

Julian Assange, (born July 3, 1971, Townsville, Queensland, Australia), Australian computer programmer who founded the media organization WikiLeaks. Practicing what he called scientific journalismi.e., providing primary source materials with a minimum of editorial commentaryAssange, through WikiLeaks, released thousands of internal or classified documents from an assortment of government and corporate entities.

Assanges family moved frequently when he was a child, and he was educated with a combination of homeschooling and correspondence courses. As a teenager, he demonstrated an uncanny aptitude with computers, and, using the hacking nickname Mendax, he infiltrated a number of secure systems, including those at NASA and the Pentagon. In 1991 Australian authorities charged him with 31 counts of cybercrime; he pleaded guilty to most of them. At sentencing, however, he received only a small fine as punishment, and the judge ruled that his actions were the result of youthful inquisitiveness. Over the next decade, Assange traveled, studied physics at the University of Melbourne (he withdrew before earning a degree), and worked as a computer security consultant.

Assange created WikiLeaks in 2006 to serve as a clearinghouse for sensitive or classified documents. Its first publication, posted to the WikiLeaks Web site in December 2006, was a message from a Somali rebel leader encouraging the use of hired gunmen to assassinate government officials. The documents authenticity was never verified, but the story of WikiLeaks and questions regarding the ethics of its methods soon overshadowed it. WikiLeaks published a number of other scoops, including details about the U.S. militarys detention facility at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba, a secret membership roster of the British National Party, internal documents from the Scientology movement, and private e-mails from the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit.

In 2010 WikiLeaks posted almost half a million documentsmainly relating to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While much of the information was already in the public domain, Pres. Barack Obamas administration criticized the leaks as a threat to U.S. national security. In November of that year, WikiLeaks began publishing an estimated 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables. Those classified documents dated mostly from 2007 to 2010, but they included some dating back as far as 1966. Among the wide-ranging topics covered were behind-the-scenes U.S. efforts to politically and economically isolate Iran, primarily in response to fears of Irans development of nuclear weapons. Reaction from governments around the world was swift, and many condemned the publication. Assange became the target of much of that ire, and some American politicians called for him to be pursued as a terrorist.

Assange also faced prosecution in Sweden, where he was wanted in connection with sexual assault charges. (It was the second arrest warrant issued for Assange for those alleged crimes; the first warrant was dismissed in August 2010 because of lack of evidence.) Assange was arrested in London in December 2010 and held without bond, pending possible extradition to Sweden. He was eventually released on bail, and in February 2011 a British judge ruled that the extradition should proceed, a decision that was appealed by Assanges attorneys. In December 2011 the British High Court found that Assanges extradition case was of general public importance and recommended that it be heard by the Supreme Court. This decision allowed Assange to petition the Supreme Court directly for a final hearing on the matter.

In May 2011 Assange was awarded the Sydney Peace Foundations gold medal, an honour that had previously been bestowed on Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, for his exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights. Assanges memoir, Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography, was published against his wishes in September 2011. Assange had received a sizable advance payment for the book, but he withdrew his support for the project after sitting for some 50 hours of interviews, and the resulting manuscript, although at times enlightening, read very much like the early draft that it was.

While Britains Supreme Court continued to weigh the matter of Assanges extradition, he remained under house arrest on the estate of a WikiLeaks supporter in rural Norfolk. From this location, Assange recorded a series of interviews that were collected as The World Tomorrow, a talk show that debuted online and on the state-funded Russian satellite news network RT in April 2012. Hosting the program from a makeshift broadcast studio, Assange began the series with an interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Nasrallahs first with a Western journalist since the 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006.

In June 2012, after his extradition appeal was denied by the Supreme Court, Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy. He applied for asylum on the grounds that extradition to Sweden could lead to eventual prosecution in the United States for actions related to WikiLeaks. Assange claimed that such a trial would be politically motivated and would potentially subject him to the death penalty. In August Assanges request was granted, but he remained confined within the embassy as British and Ecuadoran officials attempted to resolve the issue. Assange began his second year within the walls of the embassy by launching a bid for a seat in the Australian Senate. His WikiLeaks Party, founded in July 2013, performed poorly in the September 7, 2013, Australian general election; it captured less than 1 percent of the national vote and failed to win any seats in the Senate. In August 2015 Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation of three of the allegations against Assange, as they had been unable to interview him prior to the expiration of a five-year statute of limitations. Swedish authorities continued to pursue an investigation into the outstanding allegation of rape, however, and Assange remained within the Ecuadoran embassy in London.

In 2016 Assange became an active player in the U.S. presidential race, when WikiLeaks began publishing internal communications from the Democratic Party and the campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Assange made no secret of his personal hostility toward Clinton, and the leaks were clearly timed to do maximum damage to her campaign. Numerous independent cybersecurity experts and U.S. law enforcement agencies confirmed that the data had been obtained by hackers associated with Russian intelligence agencies. Despite this evidence, Assange denied that the information had come from Russia. In January 2017 a declassified U.S. intelligence report stated that Assange and WikiLeaks had been key parts of a sophisticated hybrid warfare campaign orchestrated by Russia against the United States. In May 2017, as Assange approached his fifth year under de facto house arrest in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, Swedish prosecutors announced that they had discontinued their investigation into the rape charges against him.

Read the original post:
Julian Assange | Biography & Facts | Britannica.com

Stone advocated a presidential pardon for Julian Assange …

Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative and informal adviser to President Donald Trump's campaign, advocated for a presidential pardon for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Mother Jones reported on Thursday.

"I am working with others to get JA a blanket pardon," Stone wrote to the talk show host Randy Credico on January 6, according to text messages obtained by Mother Jones. "It's very real and very possible. Don't f--- it up," he said.

While Assange has not been charged with a federal crime, legal experts say the president is within his rights to preemptively pardon someone for any federal crime they might be charged with in the future.

"I most definitely advocated a pardon for Assange," Stone said in an email to Mother Jones, adding that he also pushed for Fox News host and former Judge Andrew Napolitano to support the possible pardon.

Mike Pompeo, then the director of the CIA, described WikiLeaks as a "hostile, non-state intelligence service" last year. The organization was instrumental in disseminating hacked emails belonging to then Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. It obtained those emails from Guccifer 2.0, a hacker with confirmed ties to Russian military intelligence.

When the special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers earleir this year, the charging document specifically named Guccifer 2.0 and the website DCLeaks.

The document says the defendants falsely claimed that DCLeaks was controlled by American hackers and that Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian hacker when in fact both were created and controlled by the GRU, Russia's military intelligence outfit.

Moreover, the indictment says the conspirators in this case, Guccifer 2.0 communicated with US persons about the release of stolen documents. In one instance, it says, the conspirator posing as Guccifer 2.0 contacted a person who was "in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump."

The conspirator wrote to this person thanking them for "writing back" and asking whether they found anything "interesting in the docs i posted," the indictment says.

The document does not name or charge any Americans with crimes. But previous reporting has found that Stone was in touch with Guccifer 2.0 before the election.

Julian Assange. Carl Court/Getty Images

Prosecutors also said the Russian intelligence officers transferred stolen documents to an unidentified third-party organization and used it to release information and discuss the timing of those releases so they would have the maximum impact during the campaign. Though the document does not name the organization, evidence strongly suggests it was WikiLeaks.

Stone and Donald Trump Jr., Trump's oldest son, maintained extensive contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. Stone has also said that Credico served as an intermediary between him and Assange.

Credico is known to be an ally of Assange's. He raised some eyebrows when he tweeted a selfie of him outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange is staying, two days before WikiLeaks dumped the first batch of Clinton campaign emails in October 2016.

Jens David Ohlin, a vice dean at Cornell Law School and an expert in criminal law, told Business Insider that if Stone is advocating for a pardon for Assange as part of a quid pro quo, "then it would certainly be illegal."

"If, in other words, someone offered Assange a pardon in exchange for Assange releasing hacked emails to influence the election, this would constitute a criminal conspiracy," he added. "If Trump or those close to him were part of these discussions, they would all be part of the same criminal conspiracy."

Nearly a dozen of Stone's associates have interviewed with Mueller or testified before a grand jury in recent months.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the jury has heard over 12 combined hours of testimony on Stone, with FBI analysts simultaneously examining large batches of messages to determine whether or not Stone had prior knowledge about WikiLeaks' possession of Democratic emails.

And NBC News recently reported that Mueller has evidence suggesting Jerome Corsi, a far-right conspiracy theorist and close associate of Stone, may have known in advance that emails from the Clinton campaign had been hacked and handed over to WikiLeaks.

Stone appears to be girding for the possibility that he will be indicted. Business Insider reported earlier this year that he is planning on expanding his legal team and continues to solicit donations to a legal defense fund. He said he will announce the new additions to his team after the November midterm elections.

Excerpt from:
Stone advocated a presidential pardon for Julian Assange ...