What you need to know about cryptocurrency mining – PC Gamer

Cryptocurrency news has been hot of late, thanks in no small part to the skyrocketing prices of Bitcoin and Ethereum, the two largest cryptocurrencies right now. Litecoin and other cryptocurrencies are also up in value, and given the prices on graphics cards that are supposed to be useful for gaming, some of you will inevitably wonder: should I get into the mining business?

That's a big, open-ended question, and the answer depends on many factors. I'm not going to try and cover every aspect, because Google is your friend, but let's quickly go over the basics of what you would need to get started, and I'll include some rough estimates of how much money you can make at the end.

The core of mining is the idea of block rewards. For most coins, these are given to the person/group that finds a valid solution to the cryptographic hashing algorithm. This solution is a mathematical calculation that uses the results of previous block solutions, so there's no way to pre-calculate answers for a future block without knowing the solution to the previous block. This history of block solutions and transactions constitutes the blockchain, a sort of public ledger.

What is a block, though? A single block contains cryptographic signatures for the block and the transactions within the block. The transactions are collected from the network, typically with a small fee attached, which also becomes part of the block reward. There's a difficulty value attached to the solution for a block as well, which can scale up/down over time, the goal being to keep the rate of generation of new blocks relatively constant.

For Bitcoin, the target is to generate a block solution every 10 minutes on average. For Ethereum, block solutions should come every 16 seconds. That's obviously a huge difference in approach, and the shorter block time is one reason some people favor Ethereum (though there are others I won't get into). Simplistically, the number solution has to be less than some value, and with 256-bit numbers that gives a huge range of possibilities. The solution includes the wallet address for the solving system, which then receives all the transaction fees along with the block reward, and the block gets written to the blockchain of all participating systems.

Think of it as panning for gold in a streamyou might get lucky and find a huge gold nugget, you might end up with lots of flakes of dust, or you might find nothing. If the stream is in a good location, you make money more quickly. The difference is that with cryptocurrencies, the 'good location' aspect is replaced by 'good hardware.'

There are many options for cryptocurrency mining. Some algorithms can still be run more or less 'effectively' on CPUs (eg, Cryptonight), others work best on GPUs (Ethereum, Zcash, Vertcoin), and still others are the domain of custom ASICs (Bitcoin, Litecoin). But besides having the hardware, there are other steps to take to get started with mining.

In the early days of Bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies, you could effectively solo-mine the algorithms. That meant downloading (or even compiling) the wallet for a particular coin and the correct mining software. Then configure the mining software to join the cryptocurrency network of your choosing, and dedicate your CPU/GPU/ASIC to the task of running calculations. The hope was to find a valid block solution before anyone else. Each time a block is found, the calculations restart, so having hardware that can search potential solutions more quickly is beneficial.

These days, a lot of people forego running the wallet software. It takes up disk space, network bandwidth, and isn't even required for mining. Just downloading the full Bitcoin blockchain currently requires over 45GB of disk space, and it can take a while to get synced up. There are websites that take care of that part of things, assuming you trust the host.

In theory, over time the law of averages comes into play. If you provide one percent of the total computational power for a coin, you should typically find one percent of all blocks. But as Bitcoin and its descendants increased in popularity, difficulty shot up, and eventually solo-mining became an impractical endeavor. When you're only able to provide 0.00001 percent of the mining power, and that value keeps decreasing over time, your chance of finding a valid block solution becomes effectively zero. Enter the mining pools.

If solo mining is like solo gaming in an MMO, block rewards have become the domain of large mining guilds, called mining pools. For blockchain security reasons, you don't want any single groupa mining pool or an individualto control more than 50 percent of the computational power (hashrate) for the coin network, but for mining purposes, being in a bigger pool is almost always better.

The reason is that, unlike block rewards where everything goes to the winning system, mining pools work together and distribute the rewards among all participants, usually based on a percentage of the mining pool hashrate. Your hardware gets smaller portions of work from the pool, and submits those as shares of work. Even if you only contribute 0.00001 percent of the hashrate, you still get that percentage of every block the pool solves.

To give a specific example, suppose a coin has a total network hashrate of 1Phash/s (peta-hash), but you only provide 0.1Ghash/s. Your chance of mining a block solo is about as good as your chance of winning the lottery. If you join a pool that does 25 percent of the network hashrate, the pool should find 25 percent of blocks, and you'll end up with 0.00004 percent of the block rewards. If a block is worth 50 coins, that's 0.0002 coins from each block the pool findsoften minus a small (1-3) percentage for the pool operators. That might sound like a pittance, but when coins are worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars, it can add up quickly.

There are many places that will provide calculators for cryptocurrencies, so you can see how much you could potentially earn from mining. But ultimately, you'll want to join a mining pool. As a side note, I'd recommend using a new email address for such purposes, and then I'd create a unique password for every pool you happen to joinbecause cryptocurrency thefts are far too common if you're lax with passwords. #experience

If you want to actually collect a coin, like Ethereum, you'll need to take the additional steps of downloading the Ethereum client, syncing up to the blockchain, and setting up the mining pool to pay out to your wallet. It's possible to have pools deposit directly to a wallet address at a cryptocurrency exchange, but again, there are risks there and long-term I wouldn't recommend storing things on someone else's servers/drives.

If all this sounds time consuming, it can beand the people who are really into cryptocurrency often do this as a full-time job. And the real money often ends up in the hands of the pool operators and exchanges, but I digress.

You've got your hardware, you've joined a mining pool, and you're ready to rock the cryptocurrency world. All that's needed now is to download the appropriate software, give it the correct settings for your hardware and the pool, and then away you go. Sort of.

Most pools will provide basic instructions on how to get set up for mining, including where to download the software. But all software isn't created equal, and even things like drivers, firmware revisions, and memory clockspeeds can affect your mining speed. So if you're serious about mining, get friendly with scouring places like Bitcointalk, Github, and other forums.

The easiest way to mine a coin is to just point all your mining rigs at the appropriate pool and load up the necessary software. The problem is that the 'best' coin for mining is often a fleeting, ethereal thingEthereum's real value came because other market forces pushed it from $5-$10 per ETH up to $200+ per ETH during the past several months. Prior to that, it was only one of many coins that were potentially profitable to mine. But switching between coins can take a lot of time, so there's other software that will help offload some of that complexity.

One popular solution is Nicehash, which will lease hashing power to others that will pay for it in Bitcoin. In effect, it transfers the job of figuring out which coin/algorithm to mine to others, though again there are fees involved and the going rates on Nicehash are lower than mining coins directly. The benefit is that you don't end up holding a bunch of some coin that has become worthless.

A more complex solution is to set up multi-algorithm mining software on your own. To do this, you would typically have accounts for all the coins you're interested in mining, and then create rules to determine which coin is best at any given time. Sites like WhatToMine can help figure out what the currently best paying option is, but naturally others would be seeing the same data.

The thing you need to know with cryptocurrency mining is that beyond the initial cost of the hardware, power and hardware longevity are ongoing concerns. The lower your power costs, the easier it is to make mining a profitable endeavor. Conversely, if you live in an area with relatively expensive power costs, mining can seem like a terrible idea.

When many people think about cryptocurrency mining, the first thought is to look at Bitcoin itself. Now the domain of custom ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits), Bitcoin isn't worth mining using GPUs. Where a fast CPU can do perhaps 40MH/s and a good GPU might even hit 1GH/s or more, the fastest ASICs like the Antminer S9 can do 14TH/s. But the Antminer S9 costs $2,100 or more, and still uses around 1350W of power (so you need to add your own 1500W PSU)and you'll net about $8 per day.

Can you do better with mining using graphics cards? As you might have guessed given the current prices of RX 570/580 and GTX 1060/1070, the answer is yes, though not necessarily at the currently inflated GPU prices. But let's start with a basic system cost. You'll need a cheap CPU, motherboard with six PCIe slots, 4GB DDR4 RAM (maybe 8GB if you want), budget hard drive, six PCIe riser adapters, and 1350W 80 Plus Platinum PSU. For the case, you're usually best off building a mining rig using wire shelving and zip ties or something similar. Add all of that up and it will cost around $560 (with 4GB RAM).

The sticking point is the graphics cards. If you could buy RX 580 at the original MSRP of $230 for the 8GB card, $200 for the 4GB model, or $170 each for the RX 570 4GByeah, those are the actual launch prices!that would be $1,380, $1,200, or $1,020. With prices skyrocketing on the RX cards, GTX 1070 became the next logical target, with prices increasing from $350 per 1070 a few months ago to $450+ per card today.

I've got good news for gamers, as I've put together a table showing expected returns using various forms of mining, using current graphics card and ASIC prices. Some of these (like the Antminer L3+) are difficult to find or are still pre-order, but you can sometimes pay a significantly higher price to get one. Here's what things currently look like:

Is there still money to be made as a cryptocurrency miner? I think a lot of this goes back to what happened with Ethereum this past year, with the value going from under $10 per ETH to a peak of nearly $400 per ETH. Selling all the coins you mine can earn money, but if you had the foresight to mine and hold ETH and sold near the peak value, you literally just hit the jackpot. Or if you prefer mining slang, you hit the motherload.

Ethereum prices have since dropped down to $200 (give or take), but there's this hope that eventually another bubble will occur, driving prices up into the thousands of dollars per ETH. Sound like fantasy land? Tell that to all the Bitcoin miners and investors who got in for hundreds of dollars. But without a price spikeand with the potential for the price to drop instead of going upthe above table is something of an optimistic view of the cryptocurrency market.

Price volatility combined with increasing difficulty could radically change things over the span of months. Instead of 200-400 days to recover your hardware investment, it might take several years. Or it could go the other way and take 3-6 months. I wouldn't count on most GPUs surviving 24/7 mining for several years, however.

The bottom line is that at current GPU prices, which remain supply constrained, it's no longer a 'safe' investment to put tons of money into new mining rigs. So the bubble has burst and things should be settling down again.

Perhaps even better (for gamers), early estimates of mining performance using the Vega Frontier Edition suggest it won't be substantially faster than current AMD cards, and with higher power draw it won't be particularly attractive either. But be warned that software optimizations could shake things up. If someone figures out a way to get twice the performance out of a Vega card, it could become the new mining wunderkind.

Should you quit gaming and start mining, then? I wouldn't recommend itbecause if you haven't gotten started already, you're already behind the bubble and will may end up taking a loss. Besides, playing games is more fun, and doesn't serve to heat up your office. That unfortunately won't stop miners from continuing to buy graphics cards, so long as they see a potential profit in it.

Excerpt from:
What you need to know about cryptocurrency mining - PC Gamer

‘Go on, arrest me!’ Julian Assange TROLLS Emmanuel Macron over Wikileaks emails – Express.co.uk

GETTY

Mr Macrons camp was hacked just days before his run-off victory over Front Nationals Marine Le Pen.

Thousands of emails sent during the run up to the vote earlier this year have been leaked online and the president has threatened legal action against the culprits.

A party statement said: En Marche will inform the public prosecutor of this new publication in the complaint already filed and under consideration for fraudulent access, fraudulent extraction of data, breach of correspondence and identity theft.

Although Julian Assange is not specifically mentioned in the statement, the Wikileaks founder decided to troll the party and goad its leader.

REUTERS

Posting on Twitter, he asked: Macron, you want my arrest?

Let him assume and say, rather than go through a non-party and his attorneys.

In total, 71,848 emails, 26,506 attachments and 4,493 unique senders are included in the leak.

However, WikiLeaks said it had confirmed the 21,075 emails were sent or received by addresses associated with the campaign.

Getty Images

1 of 10

It is believed that Julian Assange chooses to live in Sweden because the country's media laws are among the world's most protective for journalists

Macron, you want my arrest?

Julian Assange

READ MORE: Julian Assange's WikiLeaks releases Emmanuel Macron 'campaign emails'

This is done by checking domain keys used to sign emails.

More than 21,000 were verified while there are 50,773 emails it could not verify.

WikiLeaks fans will be able to trawl through the emails which reference Brexit hundreds of times and show Emmanuel Macron and his camp was keeping a keen eye on everything Marine Le Pen did.

GETTY

GETTY

In an interesting development, multiple emails go against the French tough line on Brexit.

Whistleblower Julian Assange has spent five years holed up in Londons Ecuadorian embassy after originally moving in to avoid extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations.

These accusations have since been dropped but the Wikileaks founder still fears he will be seized and taken to America to face punishment for releasing secret information if he leaves the building.

Visit link:
'Go on, arrest me!' Julian Assange TROLLS Emmanuel Macron over Wikileaks emails - Express.co.uk

WikiLeaks Cable Reveals US Oil Interests in Venezuela – teleSUR English

WikiLeaks has published a declassified 1978 U.S. diplomatic cable revealing U.S. interest in Venezuelan oil.

WikiLeaks has published an excerpt of a 1988 declassified cable between the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Caracas highlighting the United States' longstanding interests in Venezuela.

RELATED: Tillerson Threatens Regime Change in Venezuela

The cable, titled "U.S. Goals, Objectives and Resource Management for Venezuela," outlines that the main goal of U.S.-Venezuela relations is to ensure that "Venezuela continues to supply a significant portion of our petroleum imports and continue to follow a moderate and responsible oil price position in OPEC."

The release of the declassified document comes a day after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned of "regime change" in Venezuela.

We are evaluating all of our policy options as to what can we do to create a change of conditions where either Maduro decides he doesnt have a future and wants to leave of his own accord or we can return the government processes back to their constitution, Tillerson told a press conference.

Tillerson is the former CEO of oil giant ExxonMobile, raising suspicion his position on Venezuela has been influenced by oil interests.

President Maduro has attacked the recent sanctions are an "imperialist attack" against Venezuela.

Cuba likewise described U.S. actions as "an international plot to suppress the will of the Venezuelan people."

Link:
WikiLeaks Cable Reveals US Oil Interests in Venezuela - teleSUR English

FBI Report Shows It Was Seth Rich Not Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to Wikileaks – Center for Research on Globalization

Weve noted for many months that the DNC emails wereleaked by an insider,nothacked by the Russians.

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh who revealed in 1974 that the CIA was spying on Americans, who broke the story of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandal said in a recent phone interviewlinkedby WikiLeaks:

[The DC police took Seth Richs computer, but couldnt get past his password.] So they call the FBI cyber unit.

***

The Feds get through [the password-protection on Richs computer], and this is what they find. This is accoring to the FBI report.

***

What the report says is thatsome time in late spring or early summer he [Rich] makescontact with WikiLeaks. Thats in his computer.

***

They [the FBI] found what he [Rich] had done was he had submitted a series of documents of emails, of juicy emails from the DNC.

By the way, all this shit about the DNC, where the hack, it wasnt hacked

He offereda sample, an extensive sample, Im sure dozens of emails, andsaid I want money. [Remember, WikiLeaks often pays whistleblowers.]

Later, WikiLeaksdidget the password. He [Rich] had a dropbox, a protecteddropbox, which isnt hard to do.

***

They got access to the dropbox. Thats in the FBI report.

He [Rich] also let people know with whom he was dealing the word was passed, according to the FBI report, I also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, its not going to solve your problem.

***

But WikiLeaks got access, before he was killed.

***

I have a narrative of how that whole fucking thing began. Its a [former CIA director John]Brennan operation. It was an American disinformation [campaign].

More here:
FBI Report Shows It Was Seth Rich Not Russians Who Gave DNC Emails to Wikileaks - Center for Research on Globalization

Risk spotlights the charmless demeanour of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – Straight.com

A documentary by Laura Poitras. Rated PG

Its hard to know what to make of this. A very haphazard follow-up of sorts to director Laura Poitrass Oscar-winning Edward Snowden doc Citizenfour, which was the third film in a trilogy, Risk arrives as if it has no real place in the world. The filmmaker began this portraitif thats what it isof WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after the release of the Iraq War Logs over six years ago, and just before his claustrophobic asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London following rape allegations made in Sweden. Heavily re-edited after a reportedly more sympathetic cut screened last year at Cannes, it now exists to seemingly spotlight the charmless demeanour of its subject.

In the films most talked-about scene, Assange insists on blaming his predicament on radical feminists, to the unambiguous horror of his lawyer, Helena Kennedy. Later, Assange mirthlessly quips that he could increase his celebrity with more sex scandals. These moments aside, Risk brings an odd lack of focus to Poitrass dour exercise, made no more convincing by her flat voice-over interjections. (I dont think he likes me in the beginning; I dont trust him in the end.)

The director insists that shes made a film about journalism, and to that extent, Assange seems to be at his most sincere when talking about his obsession with the criminality of the global power class. At other times hes vain, stubborn, haughtyor so it appears once Poitras has turned who knows how much footage into a slim 98 minutes. Its easy to forget that were watching a high-profile enemy of the United States whos been cornered inside a tiny building for over half a decade. Who wouldnt be a bit fucking weird?

Most disorienting, if you didnt already know the story, is the demise of colleague Jacob Appelbaum, seen at first in a rousing public confrontation with Egyptian telecom bosses over spying and censorship, later disgraced after another murky round of sex-abuse allegations. That Poitras admits to a relationship with Appelbaum doesnt exactly help. Eventually, a clueless Lady Gaga turns up to frivolously interview Assange, whereupon the entire muddy spectacle hits a cringe-inducing low, probably taking WikiLeaks with it. In Citizenfour, Edward Snowden repeatedly stresses that he doesnt want to become the story. Heres why.

Original post:
Risk spotlights the charmless demeanour of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange - Straight.com

Chelsea Manning’s Gallery Debut to Showcase DNA Self-Portraits She Made in Prison – Out Magazine

Photography: Glenn Garner

For herA Becoming Resemblance exhibition, the trans activist teamed with artistHeather Dewey-Hagborg.

Mon, 2017-07-31 13:38

Chelsea Manning is a hero, a whistleblower, and a trans activist. Now, we can add artist to her list of accomplishments because, in the final two years of her seven-year prison sentence for her involvement with WikiLeaks, she was working on an art project that involved her own DNA.

Related |Chelsea Manning Rides in New York Pride

The result of this years-long project is a series of DNA portraits that Manning created in collaboration with Brooklyn-based artist Heather Dewey-Hagborg. The exhibition, called A Becoming Resemblance, is set to debut on August 2nd at at the Fridman Gallery in Manhattan and will feature 30 3-D printed portraits of Mannings face.

The entire project was made possible thanks to Mannings idea to send samples of her DNA out of prison in the mail. According to the artist, Manning gave to her lawyer envelopes filled with samples of her hair and cheek swabs.While this may have been a new process for Manning, this isnt Dewey-Hagborgs first DNA rodeo. The artist had already created 3-D portraits of strangers through discarded cigarette butts, pieces of gum, and hair found on the streets of New York.

Radical Love, Chelsea Manning (2016) byHeather Dewey-Hagborg

As she waited out her prison sentence, Manning found a voice in the art project at a time when discrimination against her and her gender transition was at its height. "Prisons try very hard to make us inhuman and unreal by denying our image, and thus our existence, to the rest of the world," Manning said in a statement. "Imagery has become a kind of proof of existence. The use of DNA in art provides a cutting edge and a very postmodernalmost 'post-postmodern'analysis of thought, identity, and expression.

Related |Chelsea Manning Opens Up in First Interview Since Release From Prison

When the exhibition opens on August 2nd, it will be historic not only because of Mannings international reputation, but also because it will be the first time the activist will see the portraits shes been giving her DNA to for two years in person, according to Dewey-Hagborg.

A Becoming Resemblance is on show at New York's Fridman Gallery from August 2 to September 5, 2017.

Read this article:
Chelsea Manning's Gallery Debut to Showcase DNA Self-Portraits She Made in Prison - Out Magazine

Another Perspective: Transgender Troops: Trump made the right decision for the military – The Ledger

By Walt Heyer The Daily Signal

On July 26, President Donald Trump tweeted that he wouldnt allow transgender individuals to serve in the military.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump announced. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

I think he made the right decision and as someone who lived as trans-female for several years, I should know.

When I discovered Congress voted last month to not block funding for transgender-related hormone therapies and sex change surgeries, I wondered if it considered how devastating this will be to the fitness, readiness, and morale of our combat-ready troops.

In July, the House of Representatives voted down Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzlers amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have banned the military from funding such treatments.

Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.

Perhaps they have forgotten that our military was forged to be the worlds strongest fighting force, not a government-funded, politically correct, medical sex change clinic for people with gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria, the common diagnosis for one who feels at odds with his or her birth gender, develops from prolonged anxiety and depression. People are not born that way.

The proof for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is having strongly held feelings but feelings can and often do change over time.

The military is expected to prepare its members in warfare: to kill, destroy, and break our enemies. The most important factors in preparing a strong military are not hormone therapy, surgical sex changes, or politically correct education.

We need psychologically fit, emotionally sound, highly trained troops to protect our nation from its enemies.

While countless homeless vets are currently sleeping under cardboard boxes, or waiting for life-saving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, we learn that transgender military recruits now qualify for preferential coverage for sex change procedures that are scientifically unproven and extremely costly.

I myself was fully sex-reassigned from male to female, and eventually came to accept my birth gender.

I have over 70 years of firsthand life experience, eight years of living as a woman, 20 years of researching the topic, and 12 years of helping others who, like me, found that transitioning and reassignment surgery failed to be proper treatment and want to restore their lives to their birth gender.

Transitioning can be expensive up to $130,000 per person for numerous body-mutilating and cosmetic procedures over many months (or years) to fashion the body to appear as the opposite sex.

Yet, no matter how skilled the surgeon, or how much money is spent, it is biologically impossible to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. The change is only cosmetic.

The medical community continues to recommend this radical treatment in the absence of scientific evidence that people are better off in the long run. This population attempts suicide at a rate of 40 percent.

Even after the full surgical change, they attempt to end their lives, or tragically succeed.

Over 60 percent of this diverse population suffer from co-existing mental disorders. Consider Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), a former Army soldier who was so psychologically and emotionally unbalanced that he stole confidential documents from the military and forwarded them to WikiLeaks.

The military should not provide sex change surgery.

Through my website, sexchangeregret.com, I hear from people who experienced firsthand how damaging and unnecessary reassignment surgeries were. For them, the sex change failed to resolve the emotional and psychological disorders that drove the desire to change gender.

Many write after living the transgender life for years. They write to ask for advice on how to reverse the original surgical change and restore their lives to the original birth gender like I did, a process called detransition.

Some service members will come to regret having undergone the surgery and will want to detransition. Where will the military be then? Will the military pay for the sex change reversal procedure, too?

Failed sex change surgeries are not uncommon and will drive up the cost to care for the military transgender population above the projected $3 billion to $4 billion 10-year cost.

Beyond the financial cost, theres the question of the service members military readiness during their transition or detransition, as the process often comes with a great deal of anxiety and emotional instability.

I know of many who have struggled to adapt to the new gender role for years after reassignment surgery.

In my view, as a former trans-female who works every day with regretters, allowing the military to pay for sex change surgeries will make a mockery of the U.S. military.

Advocates are relentless in their pursuit of making others, via the government and insurance companies, cover the cost of sex change procedures.

If the military had been forced to pay, the advocates would have used this as leverage to press every other entity both government and commercial to pay for sex change surgeries as well.

As a person who lived the transgender life for eight years, I can attest that assisting, affirming, or paying for hormone therapies and genital mutilation surgeries would not have strengthened our military. They would only have brought adverse long-term consequences, both for individuals and for our armed forces as a whole.

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker whose website, SexChangeRegret.com, raises public awareness about the effects of gender change. He wrote this for The Daily Signal (dailysignal.com).

Continued here:
Another Perspective: Transgender Troops: Trump made the right decision for the military - The Ledger

Former National Security Agency Deputy Director John Inglis warns on data collection – NEWS.com.au

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor turned whistleblower, said Thursday that he saw both presidential candidates as authoritarian. Photo: Getty Images

A FORMER US security chief, who investigated NSA leaker Edward Snowden, says Australians should be alarmed by unchecked collection of personal information. Picture: HBO

A FORMER leading US security chief, who oversaw the investigation into NSA leaker Edward Snowden, has delivered a shocking warning over the unchecked collection of personal information by the private sector.

In an address to the National Press club today, former Deputy Director of Americans National Security Agency John Inglis said Australians should be more concerned about the collection of their data by private business than by the government.

I think we should never take our eye off the government, make sure we constrain them to the purpose for which they defined. But the private sector is running unchecked in this regard, said Mr Inglis who was with the NSA from 2006 to 2014.

Former Deputy Director of the U.S. National Security Agency John Inglis talks at the National Press Club in Canberra. Picture: AAPSource:AAP

Thats by design, you sign user agreements, you willingly give up the data, but the aggregation of that has stunning consequences. Theres very few secrets about your life, where you have been, what you have done.

Im not suggesting that is used maliciously but its a tremendous capability that can be used for good or evil.

You as a citizen may not care about the commercial efficiencies that drive from having all that information in the hands of someone who can put the right advertisement, the right product in front of you, you may care about your privacy you want greater control on that.

Mr Inglis said limits needed to be put on the actions of private enterprise.

We need to have some discussion about what are the appropriate standards for what

information can being a graded and aggregated and what degree of accountability should be effected upon those who aggregate it?

Edward Snowden leaked classified information from the NSA. Picture: HBOSource:Supplied

Im sure they will occasion a great hue and cry about the suppression of free action, perhaps liberty on the part of corporations. We trying to align the rights of individuals against the rights of groups of individuals. Its not taken in a way that fully addresses the implications of where were in the 21st century.

Is privacy dead? I dont think so. I think you can to some agree, modulate your own behaviour. You dont have to have a Facebook account, you dont need various social media accounts.

But its harder and harder. This is where government can assist. It shouldnt do so in a wet blanket way, but establishing the venue and the dialogue by which we can consider the matter and come to rational conclusions.

Continue reading here:
Former National Security Agency Deputy Director John Inglis warns on data collection - NEWS.com.au

Encryption is for ‘Real People’ – Human Rights Watch

WhatsApp and Facebook messenger icons are seen on an iPhone in Manchester , Britain March 27, 2017.

In a recent op-ed, United Kingdom Home Secretary Amber Rudd argued strong encryption was thwarting the governments ability to monitor terrorists and criminals. Rudd expressed skepticism about the need for end-to-end encryption, reasoning that real people dont prioritize security in their technology. Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family? she wrote.

The answer is simple: I do, along with broad swaths of the human rights movement and many other people around the world.

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in 90 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice. We rely heavily on networks of local NGO partners, witnesses, and victims, often located in closed societies where surveillance is pervasive. End-to-end encryption built into apps like WhatsApp shields our communications with these networks from abusive regimes and is a critical tool for ensuring we do not put contacts at risk of reprisal. Simply put, if we cant guarantee the security of our communications, we cant do our work. For that reason, every guide on digital security, including one previously funded by the UK, recommends the use of encrypted apps.

Who else uses end-to-end encryption? The list is long. Peaceful pro-democracy and reform activists in places like Hong Kong, Turkey, Central Africa, and across the Middle East. LGBT people living in countries where their sexual orientation is criminalized. Whistleblowers who reveal governmental or corporate malfeasance. Journalists everywhere trying to protect their sources.

Add to that list diplomats and government officials, including some in the UK parliament and Foreign Office. Or doctors, lawyers, and business people discussing sensitive and confidential information.

However, the home secretarys question itself indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of modern cybersecurity threats and the harms of undermining encryption. It doesnt matter whether WhatsApps 1.2 billion users in 180 countries are using the app out of convenience or concern for security. End-to-end encryption protects all of them students, pensioners, consumers, ordinary tax-paying citizens from cybercriminals and identify thieves. As information security experts, former Five Eyes intelligence officials, and even Europol have warned, any attempt to enable surveillance by compromising encryption will broadly undermine cybersecurity for all users. And the bad guys will simply find other encrypted alternatives that are made outside the UK and not subject to its laws.

The good news: Rudd said the UK government has no intention of banning end-to-end encryption. This is a welcome statement as the government continues to interpret the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act, which contains provisions requiring Internet companies to take undefined practicable steps to provide data in unencrypted form.

But the home secretary then pivots to suggest that tech companies should give them access to unencrypted information anyway by working with governments through confidential conversations. What Rudd ultimately seeks is unclear. By definition, if communications are encrypted end-to-end, companies cannot access them.

Regardless, these conversations cannot happen out of public sight. The real people who make up the public have a right to know if the government has subverted the security of the tools many rely on every day.

More:
Encryption is for 'Real People' - Human Rights Watch

Amber Rudd has got it backwardsencryption is key to defending our civil liberties – Prospect

End-to-end encryption allows journalists to speak to sources, and lawyers to their vulnerable clients. We mustn't let a climate of fear impinge on our right to speak privately by Edward Siddons / August 3, 2017 / Leave a comment

Amber Rudds approach to encryption ignores how many people use it for innocent means. Photo: PA/Prospect composite

Since the gruesome attacks in Westminster and Manchester, end-to-end encryption has become something of a buzzword for the beleaguered government. In a recent article for The Daily Telegraph, Home Secretary Amber Rudd has returned to the fray in the most apocalyptic of terms: The enemy online is fast. They are ruthless. They prey on the vulnerable and disenfranchised. They use the very best of innovation for the most evil of ends. This measure, like all other digital surveillance measures, is a matter of national security. In the seemingly never-ending war of us versus an increasingly amorphous them, civil liberties promise to be the first casualty.

In a confused and confusing piece, Rudd dismisses a blanket ban on encrypted messaging, instead proposing specific, targeted surveillance. Despite her claims to the contrary, such measures would require a backdoor, a hole in the encryption software which government and tech companiesnot to mention hackerswould be able to exploit. Renate Simpson, Chief Executive of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, has characterised Rudds remarks as at best nave, at worst dangerous.

It is great to see that you are enjoying the Prospect website.

You have now reached your allowance of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. Dont worryto get another 7 articles absolutely free, just enter your email address in the box below.

You are in complete control of which 7 articles you choose to read. Register now to enjoy more of the finest writing on politics, economics, literature, the arts, philosophy and science.

When you register, well also send you our free e-bookThe past in perspectivewhich considers how reflecting on the past can give great insight into the present AND well send you our free weekly newsletter. (If you prefer not to receive the newsletter you can unsubscribe at any time).

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party. You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

Read the original here:
Amber Rudd has got it backwardsencryption is key to defending our civil liberties - Prospect