Mass government surveillance pros and cons: NSA spying …

Internet surveillance helps to detect threats but can infringe citizens' privacy, and the laws which protect it. Is mass governmentsurveillance a necessary evil? Why is the NSA spying on regular citizens? Is Edward Snowden ahero or a traitor? Join our debate on pros and cons of government surveillance and vote in our poll

Wikileaks new release of CIA hacking documents casts new doubts on the ethics of government approach to privacy protection. With the advent of the Digital Era, many governments have adopted a policy of mass online surveillanceand data mining. This is a clear case of the privacy vs security dilemma.Governments justify computer and network monitoring based on security concerns. Online surveillance may help detect threats such as terrorism, crime, child pornography, tax evasion and fraud. However these measures have been strongly criticized for the infringement of privacy it necessitates and potential abuse of the data collected for political and commercial purposes. Due to this, maintaining Internet privacy is becoming increasingly difficult. Should the government engage in bulk collection of personal data for national security purposes? Is it acceptable for the greater good to have our online communications monitored?

The NSA surveillance programPRISMis one of the most paradigmatic cases of a government spying on its citizens. This program was launched in 2007, following President Bush'sProtect America Act, to collect and store data from internet communications from at least 9 major internet companies in the United States, including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Skype, Youtube, Yahoo!, Paltalk, AOL and Facebook.

PRISM replaced another mass Internet data mining program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was launched by the US government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but heavily criticized and considered illegal.Through PRISM, the NSA monitorand collectinternet communications from internet service providersusing Data Intercept Technology. The type of communications intercepted and collected include emails, text chats, video and voice messages, voice-over-IP chats (including Skype calls), social networks information and files transferred. In addition to NSA, other government intelligence agencies such as CIA andFBI were given access to the data collected.

This secret government surveillance program was exposed to the public thanks to the leaks made by the NSA contractorEdward Snowden which were published on June 2013 by The Guardian and The Washington Post. The classified information disclosed by Edward Snowden's NSA Files also revealed that the UK government also spied on British citizens through the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Apparently the NSA surveillance program was not only used to collect intelligence for domestic affairs but also to collect data from foreign leaders and politicians. Snowden's revelations triggered a series of domestic and international criticisms. Some claimed it was a perversion of the system, that this type of data-gathering is a serious intrusion into people's privacy and entails other risks. The government justified it as part of the wider security strategy of thecountry.

Edward Snowden has been blamed for disclosing this mass surveillance system and endangering national security. At the same time thanks to him individual liberties may be now safer from government interevention.Snowden travelled to Moscow andrequested asylum in Russia to avoid facing legal action and charges in America for revealing secret information. He is now afraid of being abducted by American secret services.Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? IsEdward Snowden simply a whistle-blower or a responsible citizen concerned with fighting to prevent the government from abusing its power? Share your views on the forum below.

Watch Edward Snowden TedTalk on how take back the internet:

There are many pros and cons associated with the use of mass internet surveillance. This is a list of the most common arguments in favor and agaist government surveillance programs:

Pros:

Cons:

Difficult questions: What do you think of the NSA spying on us for security purposes? Are there better alternatives? Could these government surveillance systems be subject to public scrutiny and accountability rules? How much more security should these programs deliver to justify the infringement of privacy and personal liberties? Join our discussion forum below.

Watch this academic debate on National Security and Cyber Surveillance at George Washington University:

Mass governnment surveillance pros and cons: Is NSA internet spying and data mining justified?Vote and and share your views

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

See more here:
Mass government surveillance pros and cons: NSA spying ...

Julian Assange reportedly nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Julian Assange has been nominated for a 2019 Nobel Peace Prize, according to the legal campaign to defend him.

The Defend Assange Campaign tweeted a photo of Assange next to a Nobel coin on the morning of Feb. 18.

https://t.co/eTf6bNdj2J pic.twitter.com/riI8ESudHa

Defend Assange Campaign (@DefendAssange) February 18, 2019

Assange was apparently nominated by 1976 Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire. Former laureates are among the select group who can nominate others for the Peace Prize, which is awarded in Oslo, Norway.

Maguire, who won for her work promoting peace in Northern Ireland during that countrys religious clashes, wrote in the Irish Examiner in January of her decision to nominate Assange.

Julian Assange meets all criteria for the Nobel peace prize. Through his release of hidden information to the public we are no longer nave to the atrocities of war, we are no longer oblivious to the connections between big business, the acquisition of resources, and the spoils of war. As his human rights and freedom are in jeopardy the Nobel peace prize would afford Julian much greater protection from government forces.

An attempt to reach Maguire for comment was unsuccessful.

Nobel Peace Prize nominations are due by Feb. 1, when the Nobel Committee meets to review the nominations. This year, there are 304 candidates nominated for the prize, the fourth-highest number ever.

Assanges organization, WikiLeaks, was nominated by a Norwegian legislator in 2011, just after WikiLeaks leaked diplomatic cables and logs provided by whisteblower Chelsea Manning.

The Defend Assange Campaign did not respond to request for comment. The Nobel Committee did not return a request for comment. Attempts to reach WikiLeaks were unsuccessful.

Assange fears he faces extradition to the U.S. if he leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been living since 2012. WikiLeaks is reportedly under investigation by Robert Mueller for leaking emails from the Democratic National Committee in 2016, and a court error late last year increased speculation that Assange could be charged separately in U.S. courts, although it is unclear specifically what the charges are.

Ellen Ioanes is the FOIA reporter at the Daily Dot, where she covers U.S. politics. She is a graduate of Columbia Journalism School, and her work has appeared in the Guardian, the Center for Public Integrity, HuffPost India, and more.

Read more:
Julian Assange reportedly nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

John Pilger calls for participation in demonstrations to …

18 February 2019

Demonstrations have been called by the Socialist Equality Party in Sydney and Melbourne to demand that the Australian government intervene to secure the freedom of persecuted Australian citizen and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

John Pilger, journalist, filmmaker and outspoken opponent of militarism and injustice, will be one of the main speakers at the demonstration in Sydney, at Martin Place Amphitheatre at 2 p.m. on Sunday, March 3. Other speakers will include well-known retired academic and human rights advocate Professor Stuart Rees.

The demonstration in Melbourne will be at the Victorian State Library in Swanston Street, at 1 p.m. on Sunday, March 10.

For nearly seven years, Assange has been effectively imprisoned inside the small Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he was granted political asylum in June 2012 to escape the prospect of being extradited to the United States where he would face a show trial on charges of espionage or conspiracy for exposing American government war crimes and intrigues.

The Australian government has the power to compel Britain to allow Assange to leave the embassy and immediately return to Australia, with protection from any extradition to the US.

In his statement below, John Pilger calls on all people to support and join the demonstrations and demand that the government exercise that power.

The SEP appeals to WSWS readers and our members and supporters to circulate John Pilgers strong appeal as widely as possible via social media and other means.

*****

February 17, 2019

The miscarriage of justice against Julian Assange is epic in its meaning for a civilised, democratic way of life. The abuse of Julian on a daily basis is an abuse of us all, because it denies rights without which we descend into fascism.

That descent is vivid in the outrage of Julian's confinement, in the denial of international law in his case and in his casting as an outlaw by a collusive media.

This loss of freedom applies to us: in the extreme politics of everyday life, in the fraud of austerity and in a state of permanent war against refugees and false enemies.

Standing up for the rights of Julian Assange is standing up for freedom in its purest sense. That is why the SEP rallies on 3 March in Sydney and 10 March in Melbourne are so urgent.

Please join us.

John Pilger

Follow this link:
John Pilger calls for participation in demonstrations to ...

Julian Assange says that Hillary Clinton is committing …

Story.

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange spoke during a live feed, prior to the Green Party nomination of Jill Stein.

Assange claims that Hillary is trying to "extort" votes from left-wing voters, by using the possibility of a Republican victory as fuel to scare them into voting for her instead as the lesser evil.

What the Clinton campaign is doing at the moment is trying to say, Well, OK, yes, maybe were committed to arms dealers and to Saudi Arabia, and yes, maybe we subverted the integrity of the Democratic primary, etc., etc., but youll just have to swallow that, youll just have to swallow that or else youll get Donald Trump, he said.

He told voters to vote based on their principals, rather than out of a desire to put the "lesser of two evils" in office by voting for Hillary.

Assange also said the following: Theres a cost to violating principles even if theres a cost to yourself, even if you dont like the risk, which seems to be getting very small, the risk that Donald Trump becomes president.

It is interesting that Assange is getting involved at this level, and I find it interesting that the Green Party chose him as a speaker, considering the things WikiLeaks has done in the past few years contrary to the interests of the US.

The Green Party appears to be going after Sanders voters that refused to switch to Hillary even after his endorsement of her, according to the article.

Extort may be a strong word, since many political campaigns resort to telling you how much the other guy will screw things up if they are elected already, but many people are using how bad they think the other guy will be in this election, with people against Trump saying that he would be too incompetent to run the country (among other things) and people against Hillary saying that she can't be trusted with sensitive information or that she will be too soft on potential terrorists.

Do you agree with Assange's claim that Hillary Clinton is trying to extort her way to a victory, or do you think that Assange is inaccurate in his statements?

Read more:
Julian Assange says that Hillary Clinton is committing ...

WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning faces 22 new charges – CBS News

Updated at 6:39 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON - The Army said Wednesday it has filed 22 additional charges against Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, the soldier suspected of providing classified government documents published by the WikiLeaks anti-secrecy group.

Special Section: WikiLeaksSpielberg gets rights to WikiLeaks book for film

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the new charges for the first time formally accuse Manning of aiding the enemy.

Army officials said the charges accuse Manning of using unauthorized software on government computers to extract classified information, illegally download it and transmit the data for public release by what the Army termed "the enemy."

The charge sheets against Manning make clear that the 22 new counts against him involve the leaking of the Afghan and Iraq war logs as well as the quarter million State Department cables disseminated last year, Martin reports.

The charge sheets do not make any mention of either WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, Martin reports. All told, the charges accuse Manning of leaking more than half a million documents plus two videos, Martin reports.

"60 Minutes" Coverage of Julian Assange

Assange: WikiLeaks Played "Inside the Rules"Julian Assange, The Man Behind WikiLeaksSegment: Julian Assange, Part 1Segment: Julian Assange, Part 2Julian Assange: The "60 Minutes" Interview

CBS Radio News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen reports that military officials look like they want to throw the book at Manning, not just to punish him, but also to send a message to other service members who may be tempted to do what Manning allegedly did.

The charges follow seven months of Army investigation.

"The new charges more accurately reflect the broad scope of the crimes that Pvt. 1st Class Manning is accused of committing," said Capt. John Haberland, a legal spokesman for the Military District of Washington.

The charge of aiding the enemy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a capital offense, but the Army's prosecution team has notified the Manning defense team that it will not recommend the death penalty to the two-star general who is in charge of proceeding with legal action.

Cohen reports that military officials aren't giving up much when they promise not to seek the death penalty against Manning, a sentence that would have been unlikely anyway even if he is ultimately convicted. One big question now is whether Manning or the government will be open to some sort of a deal that precludes trial, Cohen reports.

In a written statement detailing the new charges, the Army said that if Manning were convicted of all charges he would face life in prison, plus reduction in rank to the lowest enlisted pay grade, a dishonorable discharge and loss of all pay and allowances.

Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, said any charges that Manning may face at trial will be determined by an Article 32 investigation, the military equivalent of a preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding, possibly beginning in late May or early June.

Trial proceedings against Manning have been on hold since July, pending the results of a medical inquiry into Manning's mental capacity and responsibility.

The Army said Manning was notified in person of the additional charges on Wednesday. He is confined at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va.

View post:
WikiLeaks: Bradley Manning faces 22 new charges - CBS News

Edward Snowden And WikiLeaks – Business Insider

Assange holding a photo of SnowdenFree Software FoundationAmid calls for the clemency of Edward Snowden, many questions remain about the 30-year-old's flight from America and asylum in Russia.

One major unresolved issue is the relationship between "the most dangerous leaker in American history" and WikiLeaks, an organization with an admitted antagonism toward the U.S. and a cozy history with the Kremlin.

Given WikiLeaks' penchant for facilitating U.S. government leaks, its early involvement in the Snowden saga deserves scrutiny.

After the NSA contractor outed himself in Hong Kong on June 9, he parted ways with the journalists he met there and went underground.

On June 12, the same day he leaked specific details of NSA hacking in China to the South China Morning Post, Snowden contacted WikiLeaks. The organization subsequently paid for his lodgings and sent top advisor Sarah Harrison to help.

(Some suspect Russia and/or WikiLeaks contacted Snowden before June 12, but there is no clear evidence of that.)

Harrison accompanied Snowden as he met with Russian officials reportedly in the Kremlin consulate and WikiLeaks bought his ticket to Moscow on June 23.

Snowden and his closest supporters contend that he was on his way to Latin America when the U.S. government stranded him in Moscow, but there are several reasons to doubt that claim.

First, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Janet Reitman of Rolling Stone that he advised Snowden against going to Latin America because "he would be physically safest in Russia."

Second, the U.S. revoked Snowden's passport by June 22, and the unsigned Ecuadorian travel document acquired by Assange was void when Snowden landed in Moscow.

WikiLeaks told BI that the Ecuadorian document was meant to help Snowden leave Hong Kong, which raises the question of why he would need it if his passport was still good. The organization has not explained why it would send the NSA-trained hacker to Russia knowing he would land with a void passport and a bunk travel document.

On July 12, Snowden's Moscow lawyer Anatoly Kucherena explained that Snowden "is in a situation with no way out. He has no passport and can travel nowhere; he has no visa."

Third, even if Snowden had proper travel documentation, it's unclear if Russia's post-Soviet security services (FSB) would have allowed a systems administrator who beat the NSA vetting system and stole a bunch of intel to simply "pass through the business lounge, on the way to Cuba."

On Aug. 1 Kucherena, who is employed by the FSB, explained why Russia granted Snowden temporary asylum: "Edward couldn't come and buy himself tickets to Havana or any other countries since he had no passport."

Beyond its role in Snowden's getaway and its friendliness with Russia, WikiLeaks is also connected to three of the main people with access to the leaked NSA files. This fact does not necessarily tarnish their reporting, but it is intriguing in light of Wikileaks' deep involvement with Snowden.

Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, two journalists contacted by Snowden and then given tens of thousands of documents by Snowden in Hong Kong, sit on the board of a foundation that launched in December 2012 to crowd-source funding for WikiLeaks.

Jacob Appelbaum, a close friend of Poitras and lead author of at least one Der Spiegel story citing the Snowden leaks, is known as "The American WikiLeaks Hacker" and has co-authored other articles drawing from "internal NSA documents viewed by SPIEGEL." He interviewed Snowden in "mid-May," which is right before (or right after) Snowden left Hawaii on May 20.

Appelbaum is not a journalist and does not hide his disdain for the NSA. This week he ended a talk during which he presented never-before-seen NSA documents by saying: "[If] you work for the NSA, I'd just like to encourage you to leak more documents."

Assange told the same audience to "join the CIA. Go in there. Go into the ballpark and get the ball and bring it out ... all those organizations will be infiltrated by this generation."

That is the same man largely credited with extricating Snowden from extradition to the U.S. by sending him to Moscow. The 42-year-old Australian has also hosted a Kremlin-funded TV show. And his political party recently met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who is staunchly backed by the Kremlin.

No wonder Greenwald told Rolling Stone that "Julian stepping forward and being the face of the story wasn't great for Snowden."

Snowden also hurt his own cause. Although he initiated an important debate, his statements and actions also pushed him beyond being an honest whistleblower.

All things considered, Snowden's affiliation with Assange and WikiLeaks raises a legitimate question: Is the fact that his life is now overseen by a Russian security detail more than an extraordinary coincidence?

Given that we still don't know how many classified documents Snowden stole or when he gave up access, that question should concern everyone.

Editor's note: Here's a graphic that we put together in November to summarize the Snowden saga:

Mike Nudelman/Business Insider

Excerpt from:
Edward Snowden And WikiLeaks - Business Insider

Australian students endorse rallies to free Julian Assange …

By our reporters 14 February 2019

Over the past days, dozens of students and young people have expressed support for rallies next month, called by the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), in defence of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Campaigners for the IYSSE, the youth wing of the SEP, have intervened at university orientation events, attended primarily by first year students, which began this week. They have found widespread hostility to escalating militarism and war, the growth of social inequality and the assault on democratic rights, including the US-led persecution of Assange.

The beginning of the university semester coincides with growing support for the campaign to free Assange, exemplified by a statement issued by acclaimed singer Roger Waters earlier this week, calling for the greatest attendance at the upcoming rallies.

The Australian government, however, with the support of the entire political establishment, has refused to take any action to defend Assange, an Australian citizen. The Greens, the corporate media and the pseudo-left have maintained a complicit silence on the vendetta against the WikiLeaks founder.

In Sydney, at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) orientation week, Andy, a computer science student, told IYSSE campaigners today: The first thing we should do is put pressure on the Australian government. Assange is still an Australian citizen and we have every right to demand his freedom.

Morally speaking he did the right thing in exposing government crimes. Assange didnt do anything illegal. He didnt steal documents, he just published them.

We have to protect everyones fundamental rights. This is the way to do it, to educate people and to rally them to action.

The government should fear their own citizens, the working class. If we get Assange back, there might be some backlash from Washington, but that backlash is nothing compared to the power of ordinary people. If we do this on an international scale, then both countries would have to listen to their citizens. That would be the ideal scenario.

Sabrine, an 18-year-old psychology student, said: What Assange did is good, because a lot of us were blind to the crimes that governments were committing behind our backs. Now that we know, we can start taking a stand and try to address the problem.

Governments function like dictators. They want to keep information secret. They dont want the general populace to know what is going on in the world. Because Assange and WikiLeaks released that sort of information, it has started the beginning of a movement. Hes an Australian citizen and a man for the people. Australian governments should have protected him, but they havent, which is wrong.

Cody, a first-year law student, expressed support for the protests. He noted a broader assault on democratic rights, commenting: Democracy is now run by money and big business. The media is run by moguls like Rupert Murdoch. Real democracy should be the free spread of ideas through a multitude of sources, not just from official sources.

The 18-year-old student condemned growing militarism: Capitalism thrives off war. Businessmen thrive off war, like Porsche and Grumman did during World War II in the 1940s. There is always a profit to be made. Those who are in power should be held accountable for their use of power and their abuse of power.

In Newcastle, a working class regional centre north of Sydney, Alyssa, a first-year law student said: The US government is scared of honest journalism and Julian Assange is a journalist. He hasnt done anything wrong.

Democratic rights are being stripped from everyone as a result of Assanges persecution. If honesty and truthfulness in the media arent allowed, then how are we supposed to know whats going on in the world and the reasons behind war? We need truthful media and Assange was willing to do that.

The Australian government should be held accountable for abandoning him. They are bowing to the US. These rallies are important because they will help people to learn more about the persecution of Julian Assange. Im going because I believe Assange should be set free and he should be defended. All people should go if they believe in democratic rights and if they are against the censorship of the internet.

Meghan, a journalism student at the University of Newcastle, stated: I think the vendetta against Assange is an imperialist one to hide abuses against human rights and persecute those who have revealed them.

It is changing the way journalism is supposed to be conducted. It used to be about holding people accountable, especially governments. What is happening now is totalitarian and scary. The Australian government is acting as an extension of the US state, seeking to impress its ally. It is sucking at Americas teat, instead of standing up for the rights of its citizens.

In Melbourne, the Inaugural General Meeting of the IYSSE club at Victoria University unanimously passed a resolution in support of the fight to free Assange.

It declared: As the publisher of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has played a significant role in the political radicalisation of an entire generation of youth and students around the world. WikiLeaks has revealed US war crimes in the Middle East and imperialist machinations around the world.

For telling the truth, the ruling elite are seeking to silence Assange and make an example of him to intimidate other principled journalists and would-be whistle-blowers.

It concluded by resolving, to send the largest possible delegation to the March 10 rally, mobilising students and youth both on and off campus to wage a struggle against the attacks on freedom of speech and democratic rights.

Alma, originally from Chile, works in aged care. She told SEP campaigners in Melbourne: Assange speaks the truth first of all and reveals the lies of governments all over the world that have been hidden from us. Im going to try and come to the rally. I work on Sunday but if I can change my shift I will come.

Apollo, a retired engineer, said: Assange should get a Nobel Prize for exposing the corruption and coercion that governments dont want the average people to know about. Theres a lot of bad things the governments do, mainly for profits.

If you cant fight the argument, you fight the person. Thats why they have smeared Assange. He should be freed to pursue what hes doing and I congratulate him. The Australian government should back him 100 percent.

Asma, a PhD student working in renewable energy research, stated: Im interested in social justice issues. I read about Assange and I watched a series and did some Google research. Theyre definitely trying to shut him down because hes exposing what people dont want other people to know about. Im all for him.

They just want to shut him off further because hes exposing more truths. The Australian government have abandoned him and left him on his own. Its unfair and its against human rights. I was in Malaysia at the time and the government shut down access to the WikiLeaks site. Young people were curious about it.

Go here to see the original:
Australian students endorse rallies to free Julian Assange ...

The Edward Snowden Movie Already Exists – news.yahoo.com

It's an ordinary summer morning in Hong Kong. The smog is shining; some guys in a CIA office are shuffling papers. But then, the word comes: An NSA contractor has just landed from Hawaii. Exit ordinary summer, enter Edward Snowden.

And now, thanks to a small film company in Hong Kong, we have these tense moments in movie form.

In just four days, J. Shotin association with Fallout Media and Immortal Peach (which is a great name for anything)put together a five-minute film depicting Edward Snowden's first days in Hong Kong, culminating in his unveiling in his interview with The Guardian. The film, called Verax, isin its entirety below. But if you don't have the five minutes to spare, here's all the analysis of the short movie you'll ever need.

The movie opens with the kind of intense bass and synth soundscape that Chris Nolan dreams of. The visuals here are presumably supposed to evoke data floating around the Internet. But they much more closely evoke exploding electronic jellyfish.

The first words we see, after the names of the people and production companies involved, are "Based on the Events of Edward Snowden." Because Edward Snowden is an events.

After a sweep of the Hong Kong scenery, we enter a CIA office. The thumping synths haven't yet stopped playing, so we are quickly greeted to the most intense cup of coffee placed on film.

From here, we get the first real dialogue and scene-setting action. Welcome to your ordinary morning meeting gone wrong:

The first line of the movie, "Alright, let's get started," is just a cool first line for a movie. This is where one of the CIA workers informs the others that an NSA contractor from Hawaii has landed, without reporting his travel plans in advanced. "S***, that's not good," replies a CIA worker with reasonably astute intuition.

The scene then devolves into a reading of Snowden's resume, including "Booz Hamilton," because the CIA hates that Allen guy.

...pretty much looks like a blogger. Although this blogger's soundtrack is set to DRAMA.

Here we get a little sample of the journalism surrounding the Snowden affair. This scene is complete with one very unimpressed editor:

"Stop chasing nonsense, OK?" the editor tells a staffer who was in communication with Snowden in the most convincing "I'm a newsman" impression that he can muster.

Can a five-minute film have a quick montage? Of course it can have a quick montage. Here's what Edward Snowden is up to while waiting for his big moment.

Snowden is bored by this giant green chair:

Snowden does "I'm in isolation" pushups:

Snowden, whiz that he likely is, solves a Rubik's Cube:

Here we get into some of the conflict that Hong Kong's government is facing with Snowden hanging around. "Don't we have a rendition treaty with the United States?" a police employee asks. Cue close-up police commander:

In one of the last shots of the film, we catch a full glimpse of the actor playing Edward Snowden. And oh man does he look a lot like Edward Snowden.

The movie closes with a voice-over of Edward Snowden's interview with The Guardian. The first days of his story are now complete.

Really though, it's hard to think anyone could do better than this collective did in just four days of filming. And no doubt others will throw millions of dollars at this plot within a few years to try. But even with four days and about a $540 budget, this is going to be a stiff baseline to top. No matter how hard Jerry Bruckheimer/Oliver Stone/Michael Bay try.

Give the whole thing a look here:

Originally posted here:
The Edward Snowden Movie Already Exists - news.yahoo.com

Which Types of Encryption are Most Secure?

by Top Ten Reviews Contributor

Encryption can protect your consumer information, emails and other sensitive data as well as secure network connections. Today, there are many options to choose from, and finding one that is both secure and fits your needs is a must. Here are four encryption methods and what you should know about each one.

AES

The Advanced Encryption Standard, AES, is a symmetric encryption algorithm and one of the most secure. The United States Government use it to protect classified information, and many software and hardware products use it as well. This method uses a block cipher, which encrypts data one fixed-size block at a time, unlike other types of encryption, such as stream ciphers, which encrypt data bit by bit.

AES is comprised of AES-128, AES-192 and AES-256. The key bit you choose encrypts and decrypts blocks in 128 bits, 192 bits and so on. There are different rounds for each bit key. A round is the process of turning plaintext into cipher text. For 128-bit, there are 10 rounds; 192-bit has 12 rounds; and 256-bit has 14 rounds.

Since AES is a symmetric key encryption, you must share the key with other individuals for them to access the encrypted data. Furthermore, if you dont have a secure way to share that key and unauthorized individuals gain access to it, they can decrypt everything encrypted with that specific key.

3DES

Triple Data Encryption Standard, or 3DES, is a current standard, and it is a block cipher. Its similar to the older method of encryption, Data Encryption Standard, which uses 56-bit keys. However, 3DES is a symmetric-key encryption that uses three individual 56-bit keys. It encrypts data three times, meaning your 56-bit key becomes a 168-bit key.

Unfortunately, since it encrypts data three times, this method is much slower than others. Also, because 3DES uses shorter block lengths, it is easier to decrypt and leak data. However, many financial institutions and businesses in numerous other industries use this encryption method to keep information secure. As more robust encryption methods emerge, this one is being slowly phased out.

Twofish

Twofish is a symmetric block cipher based on an earlier block cipher Blowfish. Twofish has a block size of 128-bits to 256 bits, and it works well on smaller CPUs and hardware. Similar to AES, it implements rounds of encryption to turn plaintext into cipher text. However, the number of rounds doesnt vary as with AES; no matter the key size, there are always 16 rounds.

In addition, this method provides plenty of flexibility. You can choose for the key setup to be slow but the encryption process to be quick or vice versa. Furthermore, this form of encryption is unpatented and license free, so you can use it without restrictions.

RSA

This asymmetric algorithm is named after Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Len Adelman. It uses public-key cryptography to share data over an insecure network. There are two keys: one public and one private. The public key is just as the name suggests: public. Anyone can access it. However, the private key must be confidential. When using RSA cryptography, you need both keys to encrypt and decrypt a message. You use one key to encrypt your data and the other to decrypt it.

According to Search Security, RSA is secure because it factors large integers that are the product of two large prime numbers. Additionally, the key size is large, which increases the security. Most RSA keys are 1024-bits and 2048-bits long. However, the longer key size does mean its slower than other encryption methods.

While there are many additional encryption methods available, knowing about and using the most secure ones ensures your confidential data stays secure and away from unwanted eyes.

Link:
Which Types of Encryption are Most Secure?

Chelsea Manning: digital witness | Dazed

At a time when trans rights are more under threat than ever, thespring 2019issue of Dazed takes a stand for the global creativity of the LGBTQIA+ communities and infinite forms of identity.You can pre-order a copy of our latest issuehere, and see the whole Infinite Identities campaign here.

Chelsea Manningis wearing big black leather boots. She has been wearing Dr. Martens ever since her release from military prison in 2017. Fixed forever in a legacy of countercultural action, the shoes are a fitting uniform for the whistleblower responsible for the largest transmission of classified military documents in American history.

Manning is slender and small, standing just 5ft 2in with a crop of light blonde hair tucked easily behind her ears. On this December day, she is at a New York branch of The Wing, the bustling millennial womens club. Dim-pink and polished, with conference rooms dedicated to women of history, the building is full of professional, feminist-minded women of a certain disposition, eyes forward, fixed on private computer screens. Chelsea Manning stands out as a member, sheathed in black pants and a long-sleeved shirt, with dark eyeliner.

Two years ago,Manning was in a cell in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, her hair cut by force, serving a 35-year prison sentence after being convicted on 19 charges, including six counts of espionage. She had been in custody for nearly seven years, since 2010, and throughout that time endured treatment deemed cruel, inhuman and degrading by the United Nations.

As an intelligence analyst for the US military working outside of Baghdad, Iraq, Manning exposed American subterfuge against its own citizens, and the killing of Iraqi civilians; an infamous video shows an Apache helicopter shooting them down. In court, Manning described a kind of delightful bloodlust in the soldiers voices. With then-President-Elect Trump poised to take power, Manning was released, her sentence reduced to time-served by President Obama as he readied to depart the office forever. It was a shock to all sides: represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Manning had fought for her freedom but, given the extreme controversy of her actions, it was hard to believe President Obama would actually have her released.

By that time, Mannings identity had long been absorbed into her political image. The world had come to know a kind of Chelsea Manning the icon, the hero, the villain, the symbol but, whichever version you saw, it was never the real one. Never Manning free from prison. Never Manning outside of a cage. That history surrounds her; sitting in a corner of this quiet but packed room in New York today, she is The Chelsea Manning. And yet, no one is watching, no one whispering into a sisters ear. She seems almost encrypted, able to hide herself if necessary.

And then she is rising from her seat, greeting me, doing another interview. Why did you do the things? says Manning, mimicking the redundant questions she is most often subjected to by the media, questions which have become painful through endless repetition. These parts of my life are over. This is definitely something I share with a lot of former prisoners; we dont like to bring up our time in prison and the things that got us in there. Its really hard.

Also, around the time of her arrest, Manning was moving on from her life as a man. Its difficult to move forward in your life when the rest of the world is still attached to the part youve left behind.

There are some people who call me a hero. But things are worse now. Even worse than they were in 2010 Chelsea Manning

So, what else?

Im a clubber, Manning says, with a heartwarming smile. Were squeezed into a phone booth, because none of the conference rooms are available. Her manager, also a trans woman, is sitting cross-legged on the floor.Chelseas now-managerwrote to her when she was in prison; when she was released, the pen-pals became close friends and established a professional relationship. Aside from overthrowing industrial complexes, they both like electronic music, a lot. Manning describes it as a core aspect of her life since childhood.

Its what made Hackers, the 1995 cult classic with Angelina Jolie, a good film for her, despite lacking any sort of technical accuracy. (The mechanics were terrible, says Manning, as elitist and critical of depictions of coding culture as a fashion editor might be of, say, low-rise jeans.) I was a genderqueer kid out in the middle of nowhere, so it was a different world, says Manning, explaining how electronic music in the 1990s worked as a vital pathway to digital space, where she found solace. At the time, she says, the online realm was an unexplored frontier populated only by nerds, but it was an alternate universe that she needed desperately. I understood this world intuitively.

Today, Manning is known for being particularly adept at using Twitter. Her tweets tend to take aim at whatever topic has caught her attention, and are inscribed with a signature, glorious combination of emojis that somehow perfectly articulate complex political issues. People think about my use of emojis and Im just like, Ive been doing this since the mid-90s, Manning deadpans, flexing her decades of experience in chatrooms and web forums. Like, Ive been doing text-based emojis and emoticons since AOL messenger. This isnt new; I didnt just discover the emoji keyboard.

Lately, however, Manning has been tweeting less. For her, spending too much time online, or tangled up in Twitter, can incite a sense of isolation and impending, inescapable destruction. The media, inextricable from the wider Twitter discourse, is just as unhealthy. It creates these discrete stories which were bombarded with constantly, says Manning, leaning back on her stool. Everything feels like its chaos, and its designed to be this way... Thats one reason why Ive taken a step back from social media, because it really engages with this, and its a continuum. Its bombarding our senses with this (idea) that we are alone and overwhelmed.

Manning pauses, and though the light in the booth is dim, I can see the tears well in her eyes. Her voice heightens, breaking briefly as she continues her thread on social media and its discontents. It feels like your world is ending, she says, maintaining that, while we all might feel alone and overwhelmed with the current age of digital anxiety, things dont have to be this way. If we just take a step away from our screens and realise we have communities, then we might be able to build up, and fight back.

Speaking at colleges, and organising with chapters of various activist circles in cities across the country, Manning is lending her voice to a number of social movements. Last summer, she ran for Senate in the Democratic primary in Maryland, where she lost. Even when groups are suppressed, theres still the chance of survival, she reflects, perhaps drawing on her years of hopeless incarceration: her two survived suicide attempts at Fort Leavenworth military prison; the two months after she was taken into custody, when she was held in an eight-foot wire cage in Kuwait; and all that time spent advocating for herself and a future that was anything but certain. Shes here now, walking the streets of New York City, eating pizza with her friends, travelling to meet new ones.

Theres the chance of support, Manning says, insisting on community resistance as a vital resource. She sometimes attends court hearings; recently, she sat in court for people who had been arrested in Washington protesting a college appearance of white-supremacist leader Richard Spencer. It feels overwhelming when youre in that and youre alone, but knowing that you have a community behind you, a community that loves you and will show up for you even travel to visit your court hearings means the world. It meant the world to me.

The US is often referred to as being split in two politically, particularly since the rise of Donald Trump to the presidency. Manning emerged from prison into that polarised reality, and she has been part of a movement against hatred, and supremacy of all kinds, ever since. Her friends who protested Richard Spencer may have been speaking out against his nationalist beliefs, but, on the other side of the aisle, conservatives have suggested that such protest is an affront to the first amendment itself.

To Manning, the difference is obvious; while people are entitled to believe and say whatever they want in the US, they are not entitled to a platform. Free speech isnt, I hand you a microphone and you get to say whatever you want to say, she explains. Thats not how it works. This connects more broadly to the idea, increasingly prevalent in public life, that all discourse is valuable, or that we can entertain a diversity of beliefs even when those beliefs impact the lives of marginalised peoples.

There are a lot of people who I strongly disagree with, and I dont show up and shut them down... Where I draw the line is when the implications of what youre saying, even though you might not explicitly be saying it, are the elimination of entire groups of people from society. For example, I cant debate with a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, because they want me to not exist... You dont hand them a microphone or give them a stage. If they do get one, then guess what? People are gonna show up and shut them down, because we are threatened, and if they get to debate and they win, we dont get to be around any more.

Its this kind of real-world engagement that drives Manning today. The internet has a purpose, but it has changed over time. Twitter used to be a portal that connected people separated by labyrinthian politics and social disarray. No longer. Theyve altered their algorithms, says Manning. A tweet for Occupy had a lot more mileage than a (similar) tweet would in 2019... As institutions tweets become more (favoured by the algorithms), its drowning people out. Those people tend to be the most vulnerable, the marginalised.

Activism is not tweeting. Were no longer at the point where we need to talk about what the issues are, we already know what they are, says Manning. She is a serious woman, with a palpable sense of urgency and purpose about her. Her words are assured, her voice limber and clear which may be necessary, as she is often using her platform to distil complex political conundrums into comprehensible terms. There is a programme operating, some line of code running, perfectly in her mind.

You know, there are some people who call me a hero, says Manning quietly, critically. They say the leaks changed this, and they accomplished these things. But things are worse now. Even worse than they were in 2010. She was driven to act when she felt the US government was operating without transparency, acting on the international stage without the nations consent or knowledge. The conditions that drove Manning to transmit hundreds of thousands of military documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 havent been rectified: in fact, she says, they have now intensified, accelerated and metastasised on a grand scale.

I spent my first few weeks out of prison here in New York, and it was then that I really realised, says Manning, recalling an epiphany about the simmering unrest being felt around the country at the time of her release. Ive been in an occupied military situation, you know, Ive been an occupying power in a combat zone, and when I see the police force I see the same things, the same mentality, the same sort of wartime footing among the police in certain communities. Its the same thing.

Its a revealing insight into the way in which Manning views the world. Instead of discrete problems, she sees strains of the same disease flowering in different forms, in different places. There was a green zone in Iraq where the privileged would live, she says, offering an example. But there were also the sort of red zones outside. Its very similar here; if you go out into the non-gentrified communities in Brooklyn or in any other city I spent time in Baltimore, for example the police feels like its on a wartime footing. Its not just increased presence, its the aggressiveness of the presence. Weve moved away from walking beat-cops to cops on patrol in a vehicle, with body armour and weapons. She describes a pipeline connecting the two, from weapons once used in war now used by the police domestically, to former Iraq and Afghanistan-deployed military working in law enforcement.

Despite these feelings of vulnerability, today Manning is living a life of independence for the first time. She had a difficult childhood, and a transition into adulthood that was confined within a military regime, loaded with the same principles that informed her experience before service: an empire of the west, of whiteness, of heterosexuality, of a gender construct that corrected individuality with violence. It is the continuum that links one thing to the next. She is still learning who she is as a free woman, and how to move beyond the symbolic Chelsea Manning who is worshipped and reviled in equal measure.

Ive been an occupying power in a combat zone, and when I see the police force I see the same things, the same mentality, the same wartime footing Chelsea Manning

Im never gonna live up to everybodys expectations in this regard, says Manning. Its exhausting. I fuck up; I mess up a lot in my life in general, and thats just like basic stuff. Basic life things Ive had to learn. I never had my own place. In the last year Ive lived on my own for the first time, learning how to build credit, how to have an apartment, how to pay rent on time, how to consistently clean. Part of that process is coming to terms with the person she has been. Being part of the occupation in Iraq, for instance, stands in stark contrast to her politics today. I had a very abstract perception of it, Manning says now of the conflict. It is clearly something she has spent a long time processing. Here in the US, working domestically before I deployed, I was able to separate everything, and it wasnt even really a political issue to me. I almost felt like, This is my job like, this is what Im good at. Im good at math, Im good at numbers, Im just gonna math the shit out of these problems.

Once I was on the ground, experiencing that cognitive dissonance between what we were doing and what we said we were doing, and also what I thought I was trained for versus the clusterfuck that I was a part of... It was almost like whenever Obama got elected, it changed everything but it didnt change anything at all, substantively. It doesnt matter whos president: either its a warmer and friendlier police state, or its outright fascism. Those are your options. Once you start to see the machine working, it can wake you up, but I hadnt put the threads together yet. Maybe there was no way I could have known beforehand, but I certainly feel that sense of, I should have known.

Manning feels keenly responsible for the decisions that she made, but she keeps her perspective forward-focused. You cant go back and change things, she says, her eyes glinting again in the low light. It seems now, in this moment, like she might be somewhere else. Maybe she is back in basic training in Fort Leonard Wood in the Missouri Ozarks, or at Fort Drum in upstate New York, dating her old boyfriend, Tyler. Perhaps she is a child again, or maybe shes already been deployed to a remote site in the Iraqi desert, and is downloading classified data to a disc labelled Lady Gaga. Wherever she went, she returns quickly.

Theres not a lot of ruminating on these kind of things, Manning explains. I try not to re-litigate every single decision that Ive made in my entire life, and that includes decisions such as, Should I have stayed at Starbucks in 2007?, Should I have got that job in 2008? and Should I have kept on dating Tyler? All these different decisions are important to me in how I view my life, but those arent the questions people ask me about.

I first considered transitioning at 18, Manning continues, elaborating on one of those past choices. It was daunting, and I did the opposite: I went into the military. These kinds of things are very emotionally weighted for me, so I just have to move on.

Manning is free today or, as she might say, as free as anyone can be. Her transition is progressing outside of prison, where she has access to more resources and tools to live her life unconfined by a cage or the prison of a body that feels broken. We know who she has been, but who will Chelsea Manning become in the years ahead, through these times of social unrest and political turmoil? What does she want in her life, for her future?

I want to be able to feel comfortable, says Manning, looking away as she speaks. I really wonder what next years gonna look like for me and my friends. She is a figure in black, motionless, casting her gaze forward, trying to see beyond the dark horizon. I want to be able to answer that question.

Hair Tomi Kono at Julian Watson Agency, make-up Asami Matsuda at Artlist NY using La Prairie, photography assistants Jon Ervin, Mike Feswick, Merimon Hart, styling assistants Rhiarn Schuck, Marcus Cuffie, hair assistant Beth Shanefelter, production Carly Hoff at Webber

Original post:
Chelsea Manning: digital witness | Dazed