The Beginner’s Guide To Bitcoin – Everything You Need To Know

Bitcoin is one of those things that in the past several years has created alot of buzz around the globe. Be it Brexit, or Donald Trump as the new US president, or India demonetizing their currency, dramatic economic events can be viewed in terms of Bitcoin.

In this beginners guide to Bitcoin, you will learnall of the basic, yet essential stuff related to Bitcoin.

There are many ways by which you can understand what Bitcoin is.Let me explain it to you with the help of an example.

Today, lets say you need to send money from India to the U.S.A. You use your bank wire transfer service or services like PayPal orPayoneer to send money.

For such money transfers (remittances), you end up paying a lot of fees:

Technically, you are paying money to thebank for securing & transferring the money on your behalf. In reality, everything is monitored on a ledger (bank records) & money is just transferred digitally from one account to another.

This is not like the physical delivery of goods; money is not moved physically. However, even though its digital, we pay a large chunk of the transfer amount (2% to 10%) as service fees. Lets say you transfer $100 from one country to another, anything between $2-$10 is given up because of these fees.

Even though everything is done digitally, why are you losing so much money? Well, this is how banks & remittance services like PayPalandPayoneerhave been mining hard earned money from users like us.

But theres a solution to this problem of cross-border transactions (aka remittances):

Bitcoin.

Unlike fiat money (INR, US Dollar,Euro & other paper currencies), Bitcoin is not regulated by any country. Its kind of like theofficial currency of theinternet & anyone with an internet connection can own it. This makes it independent of any corporate monopoly because everything about Bitcoin is governed by the huge community of users like me, you, and all of the others who are using it.

The best thing about Bitcoin is how easy it is to transfer all over the world with very low fees.

For example, transferring any amount of bitcoin from the United States to India or Europe will cost only $2-3 or less.

Your transaction also remains anonymous. Only the sender and the receiver know who is involved with the transaction.

As theworld is slowly adopting & accepting Bitcoin, individuals & businesses are saving a lot of money while doing business globally.

In a minute, Ill tell you about the history of Bitcoin, and many interesting facts, but for now, heres anofficial explanation of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a digital currency (cryptocurrency) which is independent of any country or geographical entity & can be used by anyone who is connected to the internet.

Like the way you store your money in your wallet or a bank, bitcoins are stored in Bitcoin wallets. Everything is done electronically & no fiat money (like the US Dollar, INR, YEN, or any other paper currency) is involved.

To spend or receive bitcoin, you use your Bitcoin wallet. Every Bitcoin wallet can have one or more wallet address. This is a unique internet address to ensure the anonymity of transactions which helps keep you safe. You can use a unique wallet address for every transaction you make.

You can install a Bitcoin wallet on your computer or mobile phone. Upon installation, it will generate a Bitcoin wallet address & you can use that address for receiving bitcoin from anyone and anywhere in the world.

I know it may be hard to understand what Bitcoin is in one go, but dont worry becauseCoinSutra will help you understand everything there is to know about Bitcoin technology & help you get started by purchasing your first bitcoin.

Bitcoin works on blockchain technology. The blockchain is a shared public ledger on which the entire Bitcoin network relies. Any confirmed transactions (including newly added bitcoins) are added into blockchains.

When any user initiates a new transaction (send or receive bitcoins), the transaction is verified using blockchains. Here is a video that explains how Blockchain technology works. This is a must watch video as think of Blockchain as internet & Bitcoin as email service that operates on the Internet.

Think of this like the physical ledger that is maintained by banks. The only difference is, in this case, its maintained by the public & anyone can use the ledger to match a transaction.

Bitcoin uses Public-key cryptography. This system uses two pieces of information to authenticate messages.

When you set up your Bitcoin wallet for the first time, you are asked to set up a private key (also known as a seed). This is the most important part of Bitcoin security. The ideal thing to do is to write down your seed keyword on a piece of paper & keep it somewhere safe.

Important: Never write down your private key (seed) online & dont share it with anyone!

We will look into the security of Bitcoin in an upcoming section & we have a dedicated section for understanding how Bitcoin wallets work.

Well for starters, no individual or bank is maintaining our transaction ledger. The ledger is available to everyone & transactions are linked to our Bitcoin address.

Unlike normal transactions where we have to enter our personal details, the only thing anyone will see is your Bitcoin wallet address. This ensures anonymity & safe online transactions.

When you make a Bitcoin transaction, your Bitcoin software signs the transaction with your private key. This cryptographic signature is themathematical mechanism that allows someone to prove ownership.

Who founded Bitcoin is still a mystery. In the month of October 2008, a paper was published on The Cryptography mailing list. This paper was published under the pseudonymSatoshi Nakamoto. Until today, the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown.

In January 2009, when the first open source Bitcoin software was released, the first ever bitcoin was issued. The mining of the first block of Bitcoin (named genesis block) gave a reward of 50 bitcoins.

Here are some common words that you will hear when dealing with Bitcoin:

I will be covering all of the above terms in detail in the upcoming days. For now, you can refer to this page to learn about the most commonly used words around Bitcoin.

Note: Bitcoin transactions are not 100% anonymous. However, you can ensure 100% anonymityusing a few tricks that I will share with you in the coming days.

I have collected some of the best videos on the web that explainwhat Bitcoin is & how it works:

Here are some of the best & official resources for Bitcoin enthusiasts:

You should subscribe to our email updates for learning everything there is to know about Bitcoin & other Altcoins.

For now, let me know if you find anything about Bitcoin hard to understand. In upcoming sections, you will learn important aspects of Bitcoin, such as securing your Bitcoin wallet & how to make your bitcoin transaction anonymous.

Here are a few hand-picked articles that you should read next:

If you found this beginners guide to Bitcoin useful, do share it with your friends & family!

View original post here:

The Beginner's Guide To Bitcoin - Everything You Need To Know

Encryption is Not Enough | Gizmo’s Freeware

A few facts

Inconvenient fact #1 - Cryptography is harder than it looks: Not just any encryption program will do. Most any competent programmer could grab the open-source code for a block cipher (cryptographic protocol) -- say AES -- and put together an encryption process to get from password entry to ciphertext.

But there is a special Murphy's Law for budding cryptographers: Somewhere else in the naive coder's encryption process - key generation, random number generation, hash processes, etc. - there will almost certainly be one or more fatal flaws. A skilled hacker can often find and break process vulnerabilities without much effort. Do-it-yourself encryption is much like thinking you could be competitive with Bobby Fischer or Garry Kasparov [more]

As Bruce Schneier puts it in Security Pitfalls in Cryptography:

A recent highly visible example shows that it's hard to know who's expertise to trust. [discussion] [examples of cryptographic vulnerabilities]

#2: Use of proprietary, closed-source cryptology leads to persistent folly:

#3 - Operating systems are messy: They leave behind echoes (cleartext) of the data you access or process - swap files, temp files, hibernation files, browser cache files, and other artifacts.

Windows Volume Shadow Copy Service presents a special problem. Even if you wipe the file after encrypting it, the cleartext copy of previous versions remain on the drive. Even though they are hidden, it is easy enough to find and restore them.

Many simple encryption programs simply encrypt from and/or decrypt to a cleartext file. Yes, some of them delete the cleartext file after you close the program, but they may not securely purge the file (make it unrecoverable).

Using a compression -- e.g. Zip -- program for encryption can be particularly hazardous. Unless you can create, open and save files directly in the encrypted archive you'll leave clear-text version of files behind on the host computer. You must purge (not just delete) those working files. You did know that deleted files are not actually erased didn't you?

If you lose your computer, or if anyone - burglar, snatch thief, snoopy co-worker - gains access to your computer, running or not, they are likely to find cleartext echoes of your encrypted data. You may want to use full-drive encryption to prevent that. All those cleartext echoes will be encrypted when your computer is off. Be sure your program also encrypts the whole hard drive when your laptop lid is closed, not just when you turn it off.

#4: Any encryption program can have a secret backdoor: The backdoor may simply be there to assist in recovery and other administrative functions. Some encryption is known to have mandated or coerced backdoors imposed by various government entities. There is just no way to know for sure if that is the case or not for any particular encryption solution. If there is a backdoor for any purpose, it is often easily discovered and exploited by attackers. Game over.

#5: Malware presents yet another threat: If any computer you use to access your data is infected by spyware, the cleartext (decrypted) data can easily be accessed and transmitted to an exploiter over the Internet. Encryption doesn't do a thing for you in this case. Your computer security system (or lack thereof) is what has let you down.

Final worry: Your computer and/or storage devices may be subject to search. It may be better to not have your sensitive data with you if you're traveling by air. Consider storing your data in the cloud (online in encrypted form) or accessing it over a VPN when you need it.

My evaluation of Pismo File Mount Audit Package provides a useful example of my approach tovetting encryption solutions.

I like the Private Folder feature of this audit package. It allows you to quickly access an encrypted file that you convert to an encrypted folder using a context menu command in Windows Explorer. The advantage is that you read and write direcctly to this folder, thus avoiding the problem of plain-text residue on your hard drive. But the critical question is the encryption trustworthy?

Fatal backup trap:

Encryption programs that create encrypted "volumes" (files that contain encrypted files) whose file size does not change, and they often intentionally do not change "date modified", even though files in the volume have been changed or added. The purpose is to maintain plausible deniability. But the result can be that your backup system will not recognize that the volume file has changed, and will skip it in the backup. Some encryption products offer an option like, "Preserve modification timestamp of file containers." Unchecking that option will allow the "date modified" to change.

VeraCrypt and TrueCrypt are examples of programs that by default do not change the modified date. However, a few cloud backup services - Dropbox for example - check the hash value of container files, not the date, and if that changes Dropbox stores a new copy of the container file.

Related information on the pitfalls of encryption:

Visit link:
Encryption is Not Enough | Gizmo's Freeware

Is WikiLeaks a Russian Front?

But Assange has a long, if enigmatic, relationship with Russia, and shares a contempt for the U.S. government, and especially Hillary Clinton, with the Kremlin. While Russias authoritarianism and suppression of free expression are at odds with WikiLeakss stated principles, Raffi Khatchadourian noted in a 2017 New Yorker profile that Assange has tended to view Russia as an important counterweight to the American empire, and has perhaps thus tended to overlook its flaws. The New York Times concluded in August 2016 that WikiLeaks actions often seemed to benefit Russia, and Assange also briefly hosted a show on RT, the Kremlin-affiliated propaganda network. On Tuesday, The Guardian reported that Manafort had visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in March 2016, around the time he joined the Trump campaign. But the article was opaquely sourced, and hasnt been confirmed by other outlets.

Assange originally entered the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden on sex-crimes charges, but since those charges were dropped he has refused to leave, saying he is worried that the U.S. would have him arrested and extradited. Over the more than six years of his residency, Assanges relationship with Ecuador has frayed. The country cut off his internet access late in the 2016 election due to his alleged interference in American politics. More recently, he has sued Ecuador for violating his rights by cutting off communications.

But a recent development in the U.S. buttresses Assanges fears. In an apparently inadvertent disclosure in an unrelated case, a federal prosecutor wrote that Assange had been indicted under seal. The U.S. government said Assanges name was incorrectly placed in the filing. It is not yet clear what Assange might be charged with, or whether the charges would stem from Muellers probe or something else.

Read: Collusion happened

The more consequential questions are what Trump knew about the back channel to WikiLeaks and when he knew it. As my colleague Natasha Bertrand has reported, Stone has repeatedly changed his story to authorities about his communications with both WikiLeaks and Trump campaign officials. Stone also pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. But while Stone was believed to be in touch with people in the Trump campaign, its not clear whether the candidate himself was aware of those communications.

CNN reports that Trump told Mueller, in written answers to questions, that Stone never told him about the talks with WikiLeaks. Of course, there were other channels: George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign-policy aide, was told that Russia possessed emails that would be damaging to the Clinton campaign. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 after being told that Vladimir Putin backed Trump Sr. and that they could expect dirt on Clinton, though all parties say no information was ultimately exchanged. CNN reports that Trump also told Mueller he did not know about that meeting, though the White House has repeatedly changed its story about it.

Continue reading here:
Is WikiLeaks a Russian Front?

Edward Snowden | Military Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Edward SnowdenBornEdward Joseph SnowdenJune 21, 1983(1983-06-21) (age35)Elizabeth City, North Carolina, U.S.ResidenceRussia (temporary asylum)NationalityAmericanOccupationSystem administratorEmployerBooz Allen Hamilton[1]Kunia, Hawaii, U.S.(until June 10, 2013)KnownforRevealing details of classified United States government surveillance programsHome townWilmington, North CarolinaCriminal chargeTheft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified intelligence to an unauthorized person (June 2013).AwardsSam Adams Award[2]

Edward Joseph "Ed"[3][4] Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an exiled American computer specialist and former CIA employee and NSA contractor who disclosed classified details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press. He is living in Russia under temporary political asylum and is considered a fugitive from justice by American authorities,[5][6][7][8] who have charged him with espionage and theft of government property.[9][10][11]

Snowden's release of NSA material was called the most significant leak in US history by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.[12][13] Based on disclosures leaked to The Guardian in May 2013, while employed by NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, a series of exposs was published revealing programs such as the interception of US and European telephone metadata and the PRISM, XKeyscore, and Tempora Internet surveillance programs.[14][15]Snowden has been a subject of controversy: he has been variously called a hero,[16][17] a whistleblower,[18][19][20][21][22] a dissident,[23] a traitor,[24][25] and a patriot.[26][27] Some US officials, such as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, condemned his actions as having done "huge, grave damage" to US intelligence capabilities while others, such as former president Jimmy Carter, applauded his actions.[28][29]In Snowden's own words, his "sole motive" for leaking the documents was "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."[30] The disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy.[31]

Edward Joseph Snowden was born on June 21, 1983,[32] in Elizabeth City, North Carolina,[33] and grew up in Wilmington, North Carolina.[34] His father, Lonnie Snowden, a resident of Pennsylvania, was an officer in the United States Coast Guard,[35] and his mother, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, is a clerk at a federal court in Maryland.[34][36] His parents are divorced, and his father subsequently remarried.[37]

By 1999, Snowden had moved with his family to Ellicott City, Maryland.[34] He studied at Anne Arundel Community College[34] to gain the credits necessary to obtain a high-school diploma but he did not complete the coursework.[38][39] Snowden's father explained that his son had missed several months of school owing to illness and, rather than return, took and passed the tests for his GED at a local community college.[30][40][41]

Snowden worked online toward a Master's Degree at the University of Liverpool in 2011.[42] Having worked at a U.S. military base in Japan, Snowden was reportedly interested in Japanese popular culture, had studied the Japanese language,[43] and also worked for an anime company domiciled in the United States.[44][45] He also said he had a basic understanding of Mandarin Chinese and was deeply interested in martial arts and, at age 19 or 20, listed Buddhism as his religion on a military recruitment form, noting that the choice of agnostic was "strangely absent".[46]

Snowden has said that in the 2008 presidential election he voted for a third-party candidate. He has stated he had been planning to make disclosures about NSA surveillance programs at the time, but he decided to wait because he "believed in Obama's promises". He was later disappointed that Obama "continued with the policies of his predecessor".[47] For the 2012, political donation records indicate that he contributed to the primary campaign of Republican candidate Ron Paul.[48][49]

Several sources have alleged that Snowden, under the pseudonym "TheTrueHOOHA", authored hundreds of posts on technology news provider Ars Technica's chat rooms.[4][50][51] The poster discussed a variety of political topics. In a January 2009 entry, TheTrueHOOHA exhibited strong support for the United States' security state apparatus and said he believed leakers of classified information "should be shot in the balls".[52] However, in February 2010 TheTrueHOOHA wrote, "I wonder, how well would envelopes that became transparent under magical federal candlelight have sold in 1750? 1800? 1850? 1900? 1950?"[53]

On June 17, 2013, Snowden's father spoke in an interview on Fox TV, expressing concern about misinformation in the media regarding his son. He described his son as "a sensitive, caring young man...He just is a deep thinker".[40] In accounts published in June 2013, interviewers noted that Snowden's laptop displayed stickers supporting internet freedom organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Tor Project.[30] Snowden considers himself "neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American".[54]

On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army Reserve as a Special Forces recruit but did not complete any training.[32][55] He said he wanted to fight in the Iraq War because he "felt like [he] had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression."[30] In an email to The Guardian the U.S. army confirmed his enlistment as Special Forces recruit and said he was discharged on September 28, 2004. The email said, "He did not complete any training or receive any awards".[56] Snowden stated that this was the result of breaking both of his legs in a training accident.[57]

His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for the Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland,[58] before, he said, joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.[59] In May 2006 Snowden wrote in Ars Technica that he had no trouble getting work because he was a "computer wizard". In August he wrote about a possible path in government service, perhaps involving China, but said it "just doesn't seem like as much 'fun' as some of the other places".[55]

Snowden said that in 2007 the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was responsible for maintaining computer network security.[60] Snowden described his CIA experience in Geneva as "formative", stating that the CIA deliberately got a Swiss banker drunk and encouraged him to drive home. Snowden said that when the latter was arrested, a CIA operative offered to intervene and later recruited the banker.[61] Swiss President Ueli Maurer said it did not seem likely "that this incident played out as it has been described by Snowden and by the media".[62] The revelations were said to be sensitive as the Swiss government was passing legislation for more banking transparency.[63]

Snowden left the CIA in 2009 and began work for Dell, a private contractor, inside an NSA facility on a U.S. military base in Japan .[30] Snowden remained on the Dell payroll until early 2013.[64] Persons familiar with the 2013 government investigation into Snowden's history said that Snowden had downloaded sensitive NSA material in April 2012.[65] NSA Director Keith Alexander has said that Snowden held a position at the NSA for the twelve months prior to his next job as a consultant,[66] with top secret Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances.[67] According to The New York Times, Snowden took a Certified Ethical Hacker training course in 2010.[68] USIS completed a background check on Snowden in 2011.[69]

Snowden described his life as "very comfortable", earning a salary of "roughly US$200,000".[70] At the time of his departure from the United States in May 2013, he had been employed by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton for less than three months inside the NSA at the Kunia Regional SIGINT Operations Center in Hawaii,[71][72][73] earning $122,000.[74] While intelligence officials have described his position there as a "system administrator", Snowden has said he was an "infrastructure analyst", which meant that his job was to look for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic around the world.[75] He said he had taken a pay cut to work at Booz Allen,[76] and that he sought employment in order to gather data on NSA surveillance around the world so he could leak it.[77] The firm said Snowden's employment was terminated on June 10, 2013 "for violations of the firm's code of ethics and firm policy".[74][78]

According to Reuters, a source "with detailed knowledge on the matter" stated that Booz Allen's hiring screeners found some details of his education "did not check out precisely", but decided to hire him anyway; Reuters stated that the element which triggered these concerns, or the manner in which Snowden satisfied the concerns, were not known.[79] The rsum stated that Snowden attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University. A spokesperson for Johns Hopkins said that the university did not find records to show that Snowden attended the university, and suggested that he may instead have attended Advanced Career Technologies, a private for-profit organization which operated as "Computer Career Institute at Johns Hopkins".[79] The University College of the University of Maryland acknowledged that Snowden had attended a summer session at a UM campus in Asia. Snowden's resume stated that he estimated that he would receive a University of Liverpool computer security master's degree in 2013. The university said that Snowden registered for an online master's degree program in computer security in 2011 but that "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the program".[79]

Before leaving for Hong Kong, Snowden resided in Waipahu, Hawaii, with his girlfriend.[80] According to local real estate agents, they moved out of their home on May 1, 2013, leaving nothing behind.[39]

Snowden first made contact with Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian in late 2012.[81] Greenwald found the measures that the anonymous source asked him to take to secure their communications, such as encrypting email, too annoying to employ. Snowden then moved on to contact documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.[82] According to Poitras, Snowden chose to contact her after seeing her report on William Binney, an NSA whistleblower, in The New York Times. Greenwald began working with Snowden in either February[83] or in April after Poitras asked Greenwald to meet her in New York City.[81] Barton Gellman, writing for The Washington Post, says his first "direct contact" was on May 16, 2013.[84] According to Gellman, Snowden approached Greenwald after the Post declined to guarantee publication of all 41 of the PRISM Powerpoint slides within 72 hours and publish online an encrypted code that would allow Snowden to later be able to prove to a foreign embassy that he was the source.[84]

Snowden communicated using encrypted email,[82] using the codename "Verax". He asked not to be quoted at length for fear of identification by semantic analysis.[84]

According to Gellman, prior to their first meeting in person, Snowden wrote, "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks my end."[84] Snowden also told Gellman that until the articles were published, the journalists working with him would also be at mortal risk from the United States Intelligence Community "if they think you are the single point of failure that could stop this disclosure and make them the sole owner of this information."[84]

In May 2013, Snowden was permitted temporary leave from his position at the NSA in Hawaii, on the pretext of receiving treatment for his epilepsy.[30] In mid-May Snowden gave an electronic interview to Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum which was published weeks later by Der Spiegel.[85] On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong,[86][87] where he was staying when the initial articles about the NSA that he had leaked were published.[86][88] Among other specifics, Snowden divulged the existence and functions of several classified U.S. surveillance programs and their scope, including notably PRISM, NSA call database, and Boundless Informant. He also revealed details of Tempora, a British black-ops surveillance program run by the NSA's British partner, GCHQ. In July 2013, Greenwald stated that Snowden had additional sensitive information about the NSA that he has chosen not to make public, including "very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do".[89] In September 2013, the existence of a classified decryption program codernamed Bullrun was revealed.[90][91]

By October 2013, Snowden's disclosures had created tensions[92] between the US and some of its close allies after they revealed the US had spied on countries including France,[93][94] Mexico,[95] Germany,[96][97] Brazil,[98] Britain[99] and China,[100] as well as 35 world leaders.[101]

Snowden's identity was made public by The Guardian at his request[83] on June 9, 2013. He explained: "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."[30] He added that by revealing his identity he hoped to protect his colleagues from being subjected to a hunt to determine who had been responsible for the leaks.[102] Snowden explained his actions saying: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things [surveillance on its citizens]... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded... My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."[3] When Snowden met with representatives of human rights organizations on July 12, he said:

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."[103]

Snowden, in an early June email sent to the Washington Post, said that in the past, whistleblowers had been 'destroyed by the experience', and that he wanted to "embolden others to step forward" by demonstrating that "they can win".[104] In October, Snowden spoke out again on his motivations for the leaks in an interview with the New York Times, saying that the system for reporting problems does not work. "You have to report wrongdoing to those most responsible for it", Snowden explained, and pointed to the lack of whistleblower protection for government contractors, the use of the 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute leakers, and his belief that had he used internal mechanisms to 'sound the alarm', his revelations "would have been buried forever".[105][106]

Snowden speaks about dangers to democracy at the Sam Adams award presentation.

Snowden speaks about government transparency at the Sam Adams award presentation.

Snowden left Hawaii for Hong Kong alone on May 20, 2013. Snowden was bound for the Republic of Ecuador via Moscow on June 23, as Hong Kong authorities were deliberating the US government's request for his extradition.

Snowden explained his choice of Hong Kong thus:

Snowden said that he was predisposed "to seek asylum in a country with shared values", and that his ideal choice would be Iceland.[6][30] The International Modern Media Institute, an Icelandic freedom of speech advocacy organization, issued a statement offering Snowden legal advice and assistance in gaining asylum.[107] Iceland's ambassador to China, Kristn A. Arnadttir, pointed out that asylum could not be granted to Snowden, because Icelandic law requires that such applications be made from within the country.[108]

Snowden vowed to challenge any extradition attempt by the U.S. government, and had reportedly approached Hong Kong human rights lawyers.[109] Snowden told the South China Morning Post that he planned to remain in Hong Kong until "asked to leave",[110] adding that his intention was to let the "courts and people of Hong Kong" decide his fate.[111] According to Glenn Greenwald, information about U.S. intelligence operations in China that Snowden gave to the South China Morning Post while in Hong Kong were motivated by "a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China."[112] In late August the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that Snowden was living at the Russian consulate shortly before his departure from Hong Kong to Moscow.[113] Anatoly Kucherena rejected the Kommersant story, stating that Snowden "did not enter into any communication with our diplomats when he was in Hong Kong."[114][115] Kucherena became Snowden's lawyer in July and was then head of the Russian Interior ministry's public council,[116] in addition to serving as a member[117] of the public council for the Federal Security Service (FSB).[118] In early September, however, Russian president Vladimir Putin acknowledged that "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with our diplomatic representatives."[119]

As speculation mounted that Snowden's departure from Hong Kong was imminent, media reports emerged that the British government warned airlines that Snowden was not welcome in the United Kingdom.[120][121] On June 20 and 21, a representative of WikiLeaks said that a chartered jet had been prepared to transport Snowden to Iceland,[122] and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced that he was brokering a discussion between Snowden and the Icelandic government for possible asylum.[123]

On June 23, U.S. officials said that Snowden's US passport had been revoked.[124] On the same day, Snowden boarded the commercial Aeroflot flight SU213 to Moscow, accompanied by Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks.[125][126] Hong Kong authorities said that Snowden had not been detained as requested by the United States, because the United States' extradition request had not fully complied with Hong Kong law,[127][128][129] and there was no legal basis to prevent Snowden from leaving.[130][131][Notes 1] On June 24, Julian Assange said that WikiLeaks had paid for Snowden's lodging in Hong Kong and his flight out.[134]

Ecuadorean embassy car in front of Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow on June 23, 2013.

Snowden's passage through Hong Kong inspired a local production team to produce a low-budget five-minute film entitled Verax. The film, depicting the time Snowden spent hiding in the Mira Hotel while being unsuccessfully tracked by the CIA and China's Ministry of State Security, was uploaded to YouTube on June 25, 2013.[135][136]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013, Snowden landed in Moscow's Sheremetyevo international airport, en route to Ecuador.[137] On the same day, before leaving Hong Kong, US officials annulled his passport.[138] Snowden remained in the Sheremetyevo transit zone until being granted temporary political asylum by the Russian government at the end of July 2013.

In a July 1 statement,[139] Snowden remarked:

Although Snowden had a seat reserved to fly on to Cuba June 24, he did not board that flight. In August, Fidel Castro rejected media reports that the plane would have been denied landing had Snowden been on board.[141]

On July 1, 2013, president Evo Morales of Bolivia, who had been attending a conference of gas-exporting countries in Russia, appeared predisposed to offer asylum to Snowden during an interview with Russia Today.[142] The following day, the airplane carrying him back to Bolivia from Russia was rerouted to Austria and reportedly searched there[143][144] after France, Spain and Italy[145] denied access to their airspace due to suspicions that Snowden was on board.[146]

On July 1, 2013, Snowden had applied for political asylum to 20 countries.[147] A statement attributed to Snowden also contended that the U.S. administration, and specifically Vice President Joe Biden, had pressured the governments of these countries to refuse his petition for asylum.[148] Several days later, Snowden made a second batch of applications for asylum to 6 countries, but declined to name them citing prior interference by US officials.[149][150] Finland, Germany, India, Poland, Norway, Austria, Italy, and the Netherlands cited technical grounds for not considering the application, saying that applications for asylum to these countries must be made from within the countries' borders or at border stations.[147][151][152][153][154][155] Ecuador had initially offered Snowden a temporary travel document but later withdrew it:[156] on July 1, president Rafael Correa said the decision to issue the offer had been "a mistake".[157][158]

On June 25 and July 15, Russian president Putin said that Snowden's arrival in Moscow was "a surprise" and "like an unwanted Christmas gift".[159] Putin said that Snowden remained in the transit area of Sheremetyevo, noted that he had not committed any crime on Russian soil,[160] and declared that Snowden was free to leave and should do so.[161] He also claimed that Russia's intelligence agencies neither "had worked, nor were working with" Snowden.[159][161] Putin's claims were received skeptically by some observers:[162][163] one Moscow political analyst said "Snowden will fly out of Russia when the Kremlin decides he can go"[164] and in July Yulia Latynina expressed her view that Snowden was under the "total control" of Russia's security services.[165] According to the Jamestown Foundation, an anonymous source informed them in early July that Snowden was not, in fact, residing at the airport but at a safe house controlled by Russia's intelligence and security agency, the Federal Security Service (FSB).[166] Correa of Ecuador said that Snowden was "under care" of Russia and could not leave Moscow.[167]

On July 1, Putin said that if Snowden wanted to be granted asylum in Russia, Snowden would have to "stop his work aimed at harming our American partners".[168][169] A spokesman for Putin subsequently said that Snowden had withdrawn his asylum application upon learning about the conditions.[147][170]

On July 12, in a meeting at Sheremetyevo Airport with representatives of human rights organizations and lawyers that the Kremlin helped organize,[171] Snowden stated that he was accepting all offers of asylum that he had already received or that he would receive in the future, noting that his Venezuela's "asylee status was now formal",[103] he also said he would request asylum in Russia until he resolved his travel problems.[172]On July 16, 2013, Russian Federal Migration Service officials confirmed that Snowden had submitted an application for temporary asylum in Russia.[173] According to Kucherena, Snowden had stated that he would meet Putin's condition for granting asylum and would not further harm US interests.[173] On July 23 Kucherena said his client intended to settle in Russia.[174]

Amid media reports in early July 2013 attributed to US administration sources that Obama's one-on-one meeting with Putin, ahead of a G20 meeting in St Petersburg scheduled for September, was in doubt due to Snowden's protracted sojourn in Russia,[175][176] top US officials repeatedly made it clear to Moscow that Snowden should without delay be returned to the United States to face justice.[177][178][179] In a letter to Russian Minister of Justice Alexander Konovalov dated July 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sought to eliminate the "asserted grounds for Mr. Snowden's claim that he should be treated as a refugee or granted asylum, temporary or otherwise":[10][180] he assured the Russian government that the U.S. would not seek the death penalty for Snowden irrespective of the charges he might eventually face and said Snowden would be issued a limited validity passport for returning to the U.S., and that upon his return, Snowden would benefit from legal and constitutional safeguards and not be tortured, as "torture is unlawful in the United States".[10] The same day, the Russian president's spokesman reiterated the Kremlin's position that it would "not hand anyone over"; he also noted that Putin was not personally involved in the matter as Snowden "had not made any request that would require examination by the head of state"; according to him the issue was being handled through talks between the FSB and the FBI.[181][182]

In late July 2013, Lon Snowden expressed a belief that his son would be better off staying in Russia, saying he was no longer confident his son would receive a fair trial in the United States,[183] and that Russia was probably the best place to seek asylum.[184] The elder Snowden said that the FBI had offered to fly him to Russia on their behalf but that he had declined citing a lack of assurance that he would see his son, and adding that he didn't wish to be used as "an emotional tool".[185]

On August 1, 2013, Snowden left the airport after more than a month in the transit section, having been granted temporary asylum in Russia for one year.[186] Snowden's attorney, Anatoly Kucherena, said the asylum could be extended indefinitely on an annual basis, and that Snowden had gone to an undisclosed location which would be kept secret for security reasons.[187]

In response to the asylum grant, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the U.S. administration was "extremely disappointed" by the Russian government's decision and that the meeting scheduled for September between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin was under reconsideration.[188][189] Some U.S. legislators urged the president to take a tough stand against Russia, possibly including a U.S. boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.[189][190] On August 7, the White House announced that Obama had canceled the meeting previously planned with Putin in Moscow citing lack of progress on a series of issues that included Russia's granting Snowden temporary asylum.[191][192][193] Following cancellation of the bilateral talks, Putin's foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said they were "disappointed" and that it was clear to him that the decision was due to the situation around Snowden, which they "had not created"; Ushakov alleged that the U.S. had been avoiding signing an extradition agreement and had "invariably" used its absence as a pretext for denying Russian extradition requests.[194][195]

Lon Snowden spoke with his son on August 15, 2013, via an internet chat program although Lon Snowden's lawyer had advised against it, saying "we don't really know who this guy is on the other end". Edward's lawyer, Kucherena, had also advised against any interactions between the family members unless they were in person. In mid-August, The Wall Street Journal reported that Lon Snowden's legal team was concerned that Greenwald and WikiLeaks were using Snowden to advance their own agendas.[196] About the same time, The Huffington Post reported that Edward Snowden had sent them a statement, confirmed by the American Civil Liberties Union as authentic, saying that no one associated with his father represented him or had any special knowledge about his situation. He stated that he remained confident in the lawyers and journalists with whom he had been working, and that there was no conflict between them.[197][198]

The owner of a secure email service which Snowden used, Lavabit, shut down the service after being forced to release the secure keys to his site to the FBI, exposing all 410,000 users to FBI's resulting ability to read all email routed via Lavabit.[199]

In an October 2013 interview, Edward maintained that he did not bring any classified material into Russia "because it wouldnt serve the public interest". He added "theres a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents".[200]

On June 14, 2013, United States federal prosecutors charged Snowden with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person, the last two charges having been brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.[9][10][11]

According to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others, Snowden's actions precipitated an intense debate on privacy and warrantless domestic surveillance in the United States.[31][201]

Edward Snowden was awarded the biennial German "whistleblower prize" in August 2013, in absentia, with an accompanying award equal to 3,000 euro. Established in 1999, the award is sponsored by the German branch of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and by the Association of German Scientists.[202] Organizers in Berlin said the prize was to acknowledge his "bold efforts to expose the massive and unsuspecting monitoring and storage of communication data, which cannot be accepted in democratic societies".[203] Snowden responded to the award, saying it was "a great honor to be recognized for the public good created by this act of whistleblowing", and that it was not him, but the public who "affected this powerful change to abrogation of basic constitutional rights by secret agencies".[204] File:Edward Snowden receives Sam Adams award in Moscow.webmThe Sam Adams Award was presented to Snowden by a group of American former intelligence officers and whistleblowers. In October 2013, after two months as an asylee, Snowden made his first public appearance to accept the award in Moscow. FBI whistleblower Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project was one of four Americans to present the award. She told The Nation, "We believe that Snowden exemplifies Sam Adamss courage, persistence and devotion to truthno matter what the consequences. We wanted Snowden to know that, as opposed to the daily vitriol from the US government and mainstream media, 60 percent of the United States supports him, including thousands in the national security and intelligence agencies where we used to work."[205][206][207]

Classified: The Edward Snowden Story, a dramatic thriller about Edward Snowden, is to be released on September 19, 2014. The film is directed by Jason Bourque and produced by computer hacker turned filmmaker Travis Doering; actor Kevin Zegers plays the character of Edward Snowden."[208]

View post:
Edward Snowden | Military Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

What is Encryption? (with pictures) – wisegeek.com

anon298190Post 33

What is the advantage of encryption?

Encryption is used most commonly in e-mails, private websites, and generally any online network that needs security and hold personal information.

What are some of the most secure types of encryption and what sort of methods can be used to decrypt them?

What is the difference between 64-bit, 128-bit and 256-bit data cryptography?

Can I use encryption on my password to get into my computer?

what is the correct meaning of encryption?

Cryptography is a wide term which encapsulates both encryption and decryption of data. Cryptography, i.e. encryption and decryption, are done by using the cryptographic algorithms which are mathematics based. Cryptography algorithms require a key for the encryption and decryption of data.

what is encryption and online privacy?

I know the meaning of encryption but I don't know the meaning of online privacy.

What is encryption key and how it is used for encryption?

What is Encryption? Explain characteristics advantages and disadvantages and users.

i want ieee projects on AES. from where can i get those ieee papers?

what is meant by encryption and explain it?

how can i write a cryptography algorithm?

What is 128 Bit encryption?

what is secure and fast encryption algoritham[SAFER]

what is an encryption key and how it is used for encryption?

Cryptography is the field of study that stands for the methods and principles that are used to transform data and hide its contents. Apart from this, cryptography is also used to establish authenticity, prevent unauthorized access and/or modification of data. It uses mathematical algorithms to transform data into an unreadable format. The main purpose of cryptography comes into play when information is transmitted, when it is more susceptible to be eavesdropped. This transformation of plain text into an unreadable format is called encryption and the process of reversing it back to a readable form is called decryption.

What is the difference between Encryption and Cryptography?

Here is the original post:
What is Encryption? (with pictures) - wisegeek.com

Bitcoin Crypto-Economics Index Real-time Price Charts …

Blockchain 101 Bitcoin What is Bitcoin? How Can I Buy Bitcoin? How Does Bitcoin Mining Work? How Do Bitcoin Transactions Work? How Can I Sell Bitcoin? Blockchain What is Blockchain Technology? How Does Blockchain Technology Work? What Can a Blockchain Do? What is a Distributed Ledger? Why Use a Blockchain? Ethereum What is Ethereum? How Do I Use Ethereum? How Does Ethereum Work? What is a Decentralized Application? How Do Smart Contracts Work? Technology Bitcoin Ethereum Other Public Protocols Distributed Ledger Technology Reviews Markets Investments Venture Capital Initial Coin Offerings Markets Bitcoin Ethereum Exchanges Other Public Protocols Business Use Cases & Verticals Payments Capital Markets Banking Insurance Supply Chain Security Identity Healthcare Energy Internet of Things Merchants Startups Legal Regulation Central Banking Tax Crime US & Canada Asia-Pacific Europe Data & Research Crypto-Economics Explorer Bitcoin Price Index Ethereum Price Data Analysis Bitcoin Calculator Blockchain Venture Capital ICO Tracker ICO Calendar About the BPI Bitcoin Legality Map Bitcoin Price Ticker Widget CoinDesk API Industry Research State of Blockchain Q2 2018 State of Blockchain Q1 2018 State of Blockchain Q4 2017 State of Blockchain Q3 2017 State of Blockchain Q2 2017 State of Blockchain Q1 2017 Consensus Consensus 2019 Consensus: Invest 2018 Consensus: Singapore 2018 Consensus 2018 Invest 2017 Consensus 2017 Construct 2017 Consensus 2016 Event Schedule Webinars Search Top nav Blockchain 101 Bitcoin What is Bitcoin? How Can I Buy Bitcoin? How Does Bitcoin Mining Work? How Do Bitcoin Transactions Work? How Can I Sell Bitcoin? Blockchain What is Blockchain Technology? How Does Blockchain Technology Work? What Can a Blockchain Do? What is a Distributed Ledger? Why Use a Blockchain? Ethereum What is Ethereum? How Do I Use Ethereum? How Does Ethereum Work? What is a Decentralized Application? How Do Smart Contracts Work? Technology Bitcoin Ethereum Other Public Protocols Distributed Ledger Technology Reviews Markets Investments Venture Capital Initial Coin Offerings Markets Bitcoin Ethereum Exchanges Other Public Protocols Business Use Cases & Verticals Payments Capital Markets Banking Insurance Supply Chain Security Identity Healthcare Energy Internet of Things Merchants Startups Legal Regulation Central Banking Tax Crime US & Canada Asia-Pacific Europe Data & Research Data Bitcoin Price Index Ethereum Price Data Analysis Bitcoin Calculator Blockchain Venture Capital ICO Tracker ICO Calendar About the BPI Bitcoin Legality Map Bitcoin Price Ticker Widget CoinDesk API Industry Research State of Blockchain Q2 2018 State of Blockchain Q1 2018 State of Blockchain Q4 2017 State of Blockchain Q3 2017 State of Blockchain Q2 2017 State of Blockchain Q1 2017 Consensus Consensus: Invest 2018 Consensus: Singapore 2018 Consensus 2018 Invest 2017 Consensus 2017 Construct 2017 Consensus 2016 Event Schedule Webinars Announcing: CoinDesk's Crypto-Economics ExplorerRelated ArticlesBull Reversal? Bitcoin Sees Biggest Single-Day Price Gain Since AprilBack Over $4K: Bitcoins Price Bounce is Gathering PacePricing NewsBitcoin Price Eyes Double Bottom Reversal After $4K DefenseXRP Nears Longest Stretch as Worlds Second-Largest CryptocurrencyBitcoin Likely to Close Below Key Price Support in First Since 2015ICE Founder: Were Kind of Agnostic on Bitcoins PriceEmployees Say Startup Civil Hyped Crypto Returns, But Failed to PayNasdaq, VanEck Partner to Launch Crypto 2.0 Futures ContractsSEC Chair Clayton: Crypto ETF Needs Exchanges Free From ManipulationBack Over $4K: Bitcoins Price Bounce is Gathering PaceFeatured NewsWATCH: SEC Chairman Jay Claytons Full Consensus: Invest InterviewBelow $4k: Bitcoins Price Drops to a 420-Day LowHash Power Favors Craig Wright Camp in Looming Bitcoin Cash ForkSexual Assault Survivor Uses Crypto to Crowdfund Anonymously About Press Events Editorial policy Comments policy Terms & Conditions Privacy policy Jobs Advertising Newsletters

English Korean

Read more:

Bitcoin Crypto-Economics Index Real-time Price Charts ...

The Left’s Canonization of St. Bradley Manning – CBS News

Jonathan V. Last is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.An intriguing aspect of the WikiLeaks saga is the story behind the arrest and public unmasking of Private Bradley Manning.

In late May of last year, Manning was arrested by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. At the time, he was stationed in Iraq at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad. Just 22 years old, Manning was an intelligence analyst, and while he wasn't immediately charged with any crime, the Army had reason to believe that he was involved in leaking classified information to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Just one month earlier, WikiLeaks had posted the gun-sight video of a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq which the site titled "Collateral Murder." It was the first high-profile leak in what would become a sustained campaign by WikiLeaks against the American government.

With Manning in custody, the Army was trying to figure out the scope of his offenses when, in July, WikiLeaks released a compendium of 77,000 American military documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. The Army believed that Manning was behind these leaks, too. In the course of their investigation, they discovered that Manning had downloaded 260,000 State Department cables from the Net-Centric Diplomacy database on SIPRnet. When WikiLeaks published these documents in December, Manning was suspected of having handed them over as well.

The public first learned about Manning's arrest not from the New York Times or the Washington Post but from Wired.com, the sister website to the magazine Wired. The scoop came from reporters Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter. And here's where the story gets interesting.

In the late 1980s, Poulsen was a computer hacker. Under the nom de guerre "Dark Dante," Poulsen accomplished a number of inventive, if not strictly legal, feats. As a 17-year-old he allegedly hacked his way into the Defense Department's ARPANET. He later hacked private corporations, such as Pacific Bell, and various federal systems, where he uncovered information about ongoing FBI investigations. This was enough to get the feds after him; he was indicted in 1989. At the time, the Department of Justice's cybercrime unit, which rode herd on Poulsen's case, was headed by a fellow named Mark Rasch.

With the FBI at his heels, Poulsen went on the lam for 17 months. During his run, he hacked into the phone system of a Los Angeles radio station, 102.7 KIIS-FM. He took control of their phone bank and used it to win various contests by arranging things so that he could always be the 102nd caller. His fabulous prizes included a Porsche 944 S2, a vacation to Hawaii, and $20,000 in cash. When Poulsen was featured on the true-crime TV program Unsolved Mysteries, the show's 1-800 tip line was mysteriously disabled. The fun ended in April 1991 when Poulsen was arrested at a supermarket in Sherman Oaks, at 10 o'clock at night. In 1994 he pled guilty to an array of charges, including wire and computer fraud. He served a total of five years in jail.

Upon his release, Poulsen became a journalist. He wrote first for SecurityFocus, a website dedicated to information and cybersecurity. Oddly enough, one of SecurityFocus's other contributors was Mark Rasch, who by that time had left the Justice Department and gone into the private sector.Poulsen has become an enterprising-and quite excellent-reporter. He occupies an unusual position in journalism, possessing not only an enormous amount of technical expertise, but also contacts in both the reformed and unreformed hacker worlds. In 2000, Poulsen was working on a piece about security issues at AOL when he interviewed a hacker named Adrian Lamo.

As Poulsen later explained, "Lamo was nearly unique among hackers of that period, in that he had no evident fear of discussing his unlawful access, regardless of the inevitable legal consequences. He cracked everyone from Microsoft to Yahoo, and from MCI to Excite@Home. And he freely discussed how he did it, and sometimes helped the victim companies close their security holes afterward." Over the years, Poulsen and Lamo became friendly, with Poulsen frequently using Lamo as a source.

In May 2010, Poulsen wrote a story for Wired.com about Lamo's having been institutionalized for Asperger's syndrome. The piece was read by Private Manning in Iraq and it struck a chord; he immediately reached out to Lamo and initiated a series of online chats and emails. It was during the course of these conversations that Manning confessed to Lamo that he had given a mountain of classified material-including the "Collateral Murder" video-to WikiLeaks.

Lamo was a hacker who operated on the fringes of the law, but he knew the difference between computer crime and offenses like Manning's that could get people killed. He was troubled by what Manning had told him and consulted some people in cybersecurity. One of them was Chet Uber, the head of a rag-tag volunteer group, Project Vigilant, which attempts to (legally) compile evidence of cybercrime and forward it to the authorities. Uber asked Lamo to talk with Rasch, who is listed as Project Vigilant's general counsel. (There is some dispute as to how serious Project Vigilant is; Rasch demurely describes the group as mostly "aspirational.") Both Uber and Rasch urged Lamo to give his chat logs to the FBI. On May 25, he met with FBI agents at a Starbucks near his house in Carmichael, California.

The entire affair lasted barely a week: Manning reached out to Lamo on May 21 and was arrested within days. Lamo told Poulsen about his contact with Manning, and Poulsen, after Manning was taken into custody, convinced Lamo to give Wired.com a copy of the chat logs and to go on the record.

Yet somehow in all of this, the character who's emerged as a folk-hero isn't Kevin Poulsen, with his only-in-America journey from computer prodigy, to dashing hacker, to jailbird, to stud journalist. It's Private Bradley Manning, who sits in the brig at Quantico facing eight federal criminal counts related to the mishandling of classified information. The left, both here and abroad, has turned young Manning into a cause clbre.

Like some latter-day Mumia Abu-Jamal (or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg), Manning is being held up as a brave voice of morality and defiance, victimized by corrupt forces of "digital McCarthyism." In December, the city of Berkeley took up a resolution to have him declared a "hero." Michael Moore regularly posts information about pro-Manning rallies on his website.

The Nation's blog recently urged readers to remember that "without Bradley Manning and many others like him, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and all our new-found public information would be as in the dark as Manning is right now." The Bradley Manning Support Network has sprung up to collect followers and money for his defense fund. Through their website, BradleyManning.org, you can donate cash or buy "Free Bradley Manning" T-shirts, buttons, and whistles or watch Julian Assange, on Al Jazeera, call Manning an American political prisoner.

Other lefties, such as Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, have actually attacked Poulsen and Wired.com for bias, journalistic malpractice, and assorted conspiratorial evildoing.That's crazy, of course. But for these people, all reality is filtered through the lens of politics. For them, Manning and WikiLeaks are players in a grand opera about the moral depravity of America, so they must be defended and their antagonists must be attacked.

The funny thing is, Poulsen isn't particularly an antagonist. He's just a good reporter working a great story.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.By Jonathan V. Last: Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard

Continued here:
The Left's Canonization of St. Bradley Manning - CBS News

If Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange … – theintercept.com

Paul Manafort arrives for a hearing at U.S. District Court on June 15, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

The Guardian today published a blockbuster, instantly viral story claiming that anonymous sources toldthe newspaper that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange at least three times in the Ecuadorian Embassy, in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016. Thearticle from lead reporter Luke Harding, who has a long-standing and vicious personal feud with WikiLeaks and is still promoting his book titled Collusion: How Russia Helped Trump Win the White House presents no evidence, documents or other tangible proof to substantiate its claim, and it is deliberately vague ona keypoint: whether any of these alleged visits happened once Manafort was managing Trumps campaign.

For its part, WikiLeaksvehemently and unambiguously denies the claim. Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the papers reputation, the organization tweeted, adding: WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editors head that Manafort never met Assange. The group alsopredicted: This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the Hitler Diaries.'

(Manafort denies it the claim as well; see update below.)

While certain MSNBC and CNN personalities instantly and mindlessly treated the story as true and shocking, other more sober and journalistic voices urged caution and skepticism. The story, wrote WikiLeaks critic Jeet Heer of the New Republic, is based on anonymous sources, some of whom are connected with Ecuadorian intelligence. The logs of the embassy show no such meetings. The information about the most newsworthy meeting (in the spring of 2016) is vaguely worded, suggesting a lack of certitude.

There are many more reasons than the very valid ones cited by Heer to treat this story with great skepticism, which I will outline in a moment. Of course it is possible that Manafort visited Assange either on the dates the Guardian claims or at other times but since the Guardian presents literally no evidence for the reader to evaluate, relying instead on a combination of an anonymous source and a secret and bizarrely vague intelligence document it claims it reviewed (but does not publish), no rational person would assume this story to be true.

But the main point is this one: London itself is one of the worlds most surveilled, if not the most surveilled, cities. And the Ecuadorian Embassy inthat city for obvious reasons is one of the most scrutinized, surveilled, monitored and filmed locations on the planet.

In 2015, Wired reported that the UK is one of the most surveilled nations in the world. An estimated5.9 millionCCTV cameras keep watch over our every move, and that by one estimate people in urban areas of the UK are likely to be captured by about 30 surveillance camera systems every day. The World Atlas proclaimed that London is the most spied-on city in the world, and that on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily.

For obvious reasons, the Ecuadorian Embassy in central London where Assange has been living since he received asylum in 2011 is subjected to every form of video and physical surveillance imaginable. Visitors to that embassy are surveilled, photographed, filmed and recorded in multiple ways by multiple governments at least including both the Ecuadorians and the British and almost certainly by other governments and entities. Not onlyare guests who visit Assange required to give their passports and other identification to be logged, butthey also pass through multiple visible cameras to say nothing of the invisible ones ontheir way to visit Assange, including cameras on the street, in the lobby of the building, in the reception area of the Embassy, and then in the rooms where one meets Assange.

In 2015, the BBC reportedthat Scotland Yard has spent about 10m providing a 24-hour guard at the Ecuadorean embassy in London since Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claimed asylum there, and that between June 2012 and October 2014, direct policing costs were 7.3m, with 1.8m spent on overtime.

Meanwhile, just a few months ago, the very same Guardian that now wants you to believe that a person as prominent as Manafort visited Assange withouthaving you see any video footage proving this happened, itself claimed that Ecuador bankrolled a multimillion-dollar spy operation to protect and supportJulian Assangein its central London embassy, employing an international security company and undercover agents to monitor his visitors, embassy staff and even the British police,

This leads to one indisputable fact: if Paul Manafort (or, for that matter, Roger Stone), visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.

So why would any minimally rational, reasonable person possibly assume these anonymous claims are true rather than waiting to form a judgment once the relevant evidence is available? As President Obamas former national security aide and current podcast host Tommy Vietor put it: If these meetings happened, British intelligence would almost certainly have video of him entering and exiting, adding: seems dubious.

There are, as I noted, multiple other reasons to exercise skepticism with this story. To begin with, the Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him. One of the most extreme of many instances occurred in late 2016 when the paper was forced to retract a remarkably reckless (but predictably viral) Ben Jacobs story that claimed, with zero evidence, that Assangehas long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.

Then there are the glaring omissions in todays story. As noted, every guest visiting Assange is logged in through a very intricate security system. While admitting that Manafort wasnever logged in to the embassy, the Guardian waves this glaring hole away with barely any discussion or attempt to explain it: Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources inEcuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.

Why would Manafort visit three times but never be logged in? Why would the Ecuadorian government, led by leftist Rafael Correa, allow life-long right-wing GOP operative Paul Manafort to enter their embassy three times without ever once logging in his visit? The Guardian has no answer. They make no attempt to explain it or even offer theories. They just glide over it, hoping that you wont notice what a massive hole in the story this omission is.

Its an especially inexcusable omission for the Guardian not to discuss its significance given that theGuardian itselfobtained the Embassysvisitors logs in May, and while treating those logs as accurate and reliable made no mention of Manaforts inclusion on them. Thats because his name did not appear there (nor, presumably, did Roger Stones).

The language of the Guardian story also raises all sorts ofquestions. Aside from an anonymous source, the Guardian claims it viewed a document prepared by the Ecuadorian intelligence service Senain. The Guardian does not publish this report, but instead quotes a tiny snippet that, as the paper put it, lists Paul Manaford [sic] as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions Russians.'

That claim that the report not onlyasserts Manafort visited Assange but mentions Russians' is a ratherexplosive claim. What doesthis reportsay about Russians? What is the context of the inclusion of this claim? The Guardian does not bother to question, interrogate or explain any of this. It just tosses the word Russians into its article in connection with Manaforts alleged visits to Assange, knowing full well that motivated readers will draw the most inflammatory conclusions possible, thus helping to spread the Guardians article all over the internet and generate profit for the newspaper, without bothering to do any of the journalistic work to justify the obvious inference they wanted to create with this sloppy, vague and highly manipulative paragraph.

Beyond that, there are all sorts of internecine battles being waged inside the Ecuadorian Government that provide motive to feed false claims about Assange to the Guardian. Senain, the Ecuadorian intelligence service that the Guardian says showed it the incriminating report, has been furious with Assange for years, ever since WikiLeaks published files relating to the agencys hacking and malware efforts. And as my May interview with former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa revealed, there are all sorts of internal in-fighting within the government over WikiLeaks, and the most hostile anti-Assange elements have been regularly dumping anti-Assange material with Harding and the Guardian, knowing full well that the papers years-long, hateful feud with WikiLeaks ensures a receptive and uncritical outlet.

In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story.

It iscertainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself secretly visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. Its possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un joined them.

And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it. Thus far, no such evidence has been published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence before forming a judgment?

The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that theyd reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other.

Update, 4:05 pm, November 27:

Manafort vehemently denies any meeting with Assange or WikiLeaks, issuing a statement on the Guardians report that reads:

This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.

Original post:
If Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange ... - theintercept.com

The Forgotten Story of the Julian Assange of the 1970s …

If Julian Assange leaves the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, hell likely face criminal charges in the United States. We know this thanks to an inadvertent disclosure in a federal court filingthe result of a cut-and-paste blunder by prosecutors.

That the Justice Department is preparing charges against the WikiLeaks founder isnt exactly unexpectedhe did, after all, publish thousands of classified government documents, and allegedly has close ties to Russian intelligence (which Assange has repeatedly denied). But what is genuinely surprising is the degree to which the case against Assange mirrors a long-forgotten episode four decades agoand what that portends for the inevitable First Amendment clash it will cause.

Story Continued Below

It may not be possibleand the Trump administration may not be interested in tryingto pinpoint specific types of disclosures as criminal without eroding the free speech protections that American journalism relies on to hold government accountable. Depending on the charges against Assange, the case could require the government to distinguish between the lawful reporting of information in the public interest and the illegal theft and dissemination of government secrets, between the legitimate practice of journalism and criminal activities that advance the goals of democracys enemies.

This isnt the first time the U.S. has faced these kinds of questions. Four decades ago, CIA defector Philip Agee and his comrades went about leaking government secrets in books and in a magazine called CovertAction Information Bulletinwith remarkable similarities to the case of Assange and WikiLeaks.

Like Assange, Agee claimed First Amendment protections while disseminating classified information. He and his associates made no effort to hide their dedication to destroying American intelligence agencies ability to spy on or disrupt adversaries. Agee was seen by many Americans as a threat to national security, yet there was widespread fear that any attempt to stop himand especially his associates who had never held government jobsfrom publishing secrets would erode the independence of the press. He was accused of having close ties to foreign intelligence services. And just as Assange and WikiLeaks have conspicuously failed to target the abuses of Russias intelligence services, Agee and CovertAction ignored atrocities and human rights violations committed by communist governments.

Agees book, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, published in 1975, revealed details of CIA covert operations in Latin America, including the identities of 250 of its undercover officers and the names of individuals they had recruited as informants. While Agee lived in self-imposed exile starting in 1978, he inspired and helped a small group of like-minded activists to publish CovertAction from an office in downtown Washingtons National Press Building.

An article in the inaugural issue of CovertAction called the CIA the Gestapo and SS of our time and asserted that exposure of its secret operationsand secret operativesremains the most effective way to reduce the suffering they cause. The magazine proposed a novel form of international cooperation in which opponents of the CIA would scour lists of Americans working as diplomats or on aid projects, identify likely CIA operatives based on telltale signs described by Agee, and send the information to CovertAction. The magazine promised to check the research and publish all the information it could confirm. It made clear its goals: destruction of the CIA and, ultimately, the installation of a pro-Soviet, communist government in Washington. From the start, it urged readers to collaborate in the struggle against the CIA, together with the struggle for socialism in the United States itself.

In the pages of CovertAction and several books co-written by its staff members, the covers of more than 2,000 undercover CIA officers were blown, and numerous agency operations around the world were exposed. The disclosures dealt a body blow to the agency, according to an article published in 1975 in Studies in Intelligence, a magazine published by the CIA for intelligence professionals.

CovertAction claimed that it had no connections with foreign intelligence agencies and that its ability to name names was based entirely on exploitation of open sources. State Department directories could, if carefully perused, reveal patterns or inconsistencies showing that someone who claimed to be a low-level diplomat was, in fact, a CIA officer. Some of the names revealed by Agee and his collaborators were obtained in this way, but CovertAction didnt restrict its activities to combing through dusty directories at the National Archives.

Information that leaked from the KGB after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, including notes smuggled out by KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin and the memoirs of former KGB General Oleg Kalugin, indicate that Agee operated in concert withand, in many cases, at the direction ofboth the KGB and Cuban intelligence. The KGB took credit for CovertAction, claiming in an internal memo Mitrokhin saw that the magazine was founded on the initiative of the KGB.

The KGB created a task force dedicated to supplying CovertAction with material that would harm the CIA. For example, in 1979, according to Mitrokhins notes, two KGB officers met Agee in Cuba and gave him a list of CIA officers working on the African continent. Some of this information was featured in CovertAction, including the identities of 16 CIA station or base chiefs on the continent. In addition to providing names of agency officers, Soviet intelligence gave the magazine a stream of classified documents that exposed CIA activities around the world.

Agee argued, dishonestly, that any allegation he was serving the KGB was a smear. At the time, there was no definitive evidence to refute Ageealthough his frequent visits to Fidel Castros Cuba provided circumstantial evidence that he was at least tolerated by communist intelligence services.

In the wake of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, Agee and his collaborators became heroes to some Americans who had come to believe that government institutions, especially its intelligence services, were irredeemably evil. While this was a minority view, there was no obvious way to prevent CovertAction from naming names of undercover CIA officers: There is no Official Secrets Act in the United States, and the American free press has a rich tradition of using leaks of classified information to shine a light on nefarious government activities.

Though there was near universal disdain for Agee in Congress and on the editorial pages of American newspapers, when a bill was introduced in 1975 with the explicit goal of stifling Agee by criminalizing disclosures of the names of American covert operatives, the legislation floundered.

Similar unease abounded over the possibility of targeting the individuals on the editorial staff of CovertAction, who maintained that they were publishing educated guesses or secrets leaked by government employees. The publication claimed that it would be impossible to criminalize its disclosures without giving the government the ability to throw journalists in jail for revealing secrets like those contained in the Pentagon Papers.

Nevertheless, the movement to crack down on CovertAction was revitalized in 1980 after the home of the CIA station chief in Kingston, Jamaica, was raked by bullets. His identity and home address had been revealed by CovertAction two days before.

In January 1981, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was introduced in the U.S. House, with the aim of making it a federal crime to engage in a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States.

The New York Times, which had no sympathy for Agee or CovertAction, branded the retired CIA officer a villain for all seasons and said the outlets staff dont even pretend to distinguish between useful and questionable spy projects. Nonetheless, the Times warned in an editorial that the pending legislation strikes at every reporter and scholar who would publish facts that Government prefers to keep concealed. The Times and other newspapers engaged in a lively debate about the definition of journalism, whether CovertAction was entitled to First Amendment protections, and fears that any attempt to restrict publication of secrets would lead to unacceptable limits on legitimate news.

In the last analysis, a free and inquiring press is the most reliable check the citizens of our nation have against wrongdoing and bad judgment in government, since government, like any individual, is often reluctant to call attention to the errors of its own ways, Democratic Senator Joe Biden wrote in a Christian Science Monitor piece opposing the proposal. It is therefore a mistake for the Congress to pursue legislation which hinders the press from performing this vital function, as it has in this case.

Ultimately, a Democratic House and Republican Senate passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law at a June 1982 ceremony at CIA headquarters.

The New York Times editorialized that any legislation that attempted to prevent private citizens from publishing names of CIA operatives was fraught with danger for all journalists, and it called on the courts to wipe the law from the books.

Thirty-six years later, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is still the law. To date, two people have been convicted of violating it: John Kiriakou, a CIA officer who was convicted in 2013 of emailing the name of a CIA officer to a journalist, and Sharon Scranage, a CIA clerk who provided intelligence to a Ghanaian intelligence officer. The law was also invoked in the Valerie Plame case, when New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed as a result of an investigation of possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Miller refused to testify about sources the government believed had revealed the identity of Plame, a covert CIA officer whose husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a vocal opponent of the Bush administrations war in Iraq.

Conservative politicians jumped to Millers defense. Mike Pence, who at the time represented Indiana in the U.S. House, co-sponsored a media shield bill to protect reporters like Miller from prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Now is the time for Congress to reassert the First Amendment, freedom of the press, vigorously by enacting a federal media shield, Pence said on the floor of the House in 2006. Nothing less than the public's right to know is at stake. The bill died quietly, and it is difficult to imagine now-Vice President Pence endorsing similar legislation today.

There are important differences between Assange and Agee. Unlike Agee, Assange never worked for an intelligence agency and has not signed secrecy pledges. Agee said he was motivated by a midlife conversion to Marxism, while Assange hasnt attributed his actions to an ideology.

Despite these differences, the similarities in the First Amendment and national security issues are striking. This is especially true of the CovertAction staff, which didnt include former government officials who could be called to account for disclosing secrets theyd pledged to protect.

The blooper that tipped off the public to the Justice Departments case against Assange didnt indicate what crime he would be charged with. But unless the charges are wholly unconnected with the WikiLeaks disclosures, it is certain that prosecution of Assange would reprise the debates that raged over Agee and CovertAction that led to enactment of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The fear that the government will misuse its authority to crack down on dissent is even more widespread now.

And this time, with a president who routinely labels journalists enemies of the people, the argument over whether punishing those who publish national security leaks violates the First Amendment guarantee of a free press will likely have an even uglier, more stridently partisan tone.

Read the original:
The Forgotten Story of the Julian Assange of the 1970s ...

Paul Manafort Secretly Met With Julian Assange Multiple Times …

President Donald Trumps former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on multiple occasions, with the last meeting occurring a few months before WikiLeaks released hacked Democratic National Committee emails in the summer of 2016, The Guardian reported Tuesday.

Read the full Guardian report here.

Manafort met with Assange in 2013, 2015 and around March 2016, sources told The Guardian.Trump hired him at the end of March. The details of the meetings were unknown.

Manafort, in a statement issued through a representative, expressly denied meeting with Assange, called the story totally false and deliberately libelous, and said his team was considering all legal options against The Guardian.

I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter, Manafort said.

WikiLeaks denied the report in a tweet, saying it is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editors head that Manafort never met Assange.

On Monday, special counsel Robert Mueller, investigating Manafort as part of the larger probe into possible collusion between Trumps campaign and Russia, said Manafort lied to investigators, violating his recent plea deal.

According to The Guardian, Manaforts first meetings with Assange date back to 2012 and 2013, during his time as a pro-Russian lobbyist in Ukraine.

In August, a federal jury convicted Manafort for money laundering and tax evasion related to his lobbying work. A month later, he agreed to cooperate with Muellers investigators. But in court documents on Monday, Muellers team said Manafort recently violated the terms of the agreement by lying to federal prosecutors.

In response, Manaforts attorneys said the complaint is invalid.

Jonathan Ernst/ReutersFormer Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort (right) secretly met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on multiple occasions, according to The Guardian.

Trump responded to the news Tuesday by lashing out at Mueller and accusing him of being a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue, and again proclaiming the investigation a Witch Hunt.

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly touted the hacked WikiLeaks emails, and in July 2016, called on Russia to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, referring to opponent Hillary Clintons emails on her personal server. The same day, Russian hackers targeted her personal email, according to the timeline established by Muellers indictments this summer.

This story has been updated with additional background and Manaforts and WikiLeaks response.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story said a federal grand jury convicted Manafort in August. It was a federal jury, not grand jury, that convicted him.

See the original post here:
Paul Manafort Secretly Met With Julian Assange Multiple Times ...