Edward Snowden’s Father Speaks | News | Philadelphia …

Lon Snowden on his son, on the courage of John and Bonnie Raines, and the price activists pay for exposing national secrets.

In the course of reporting on John and Bonnie Raines for our January issue, writer-at-large Steve Volk spoke with a source who had a uniquely personal take on the plight of whistle-blowers Edward Snowdens father, retired U.S. Coast Guard chief warrant officer Lon Snowden. Lon appreciated how John and Bonnies story parallels his sons, and agreed to share his perspective with Philadelphia magazine. With his permission, published for the first time here is Lon Snowdens essay a father speaking in his own words about the controversial and historic actions of his son; fellow activists separated by decades but united in their belief in a better government; and the price paid for exposing national secrets to the public.

I first learned of the Media, Pennsylvania, break-in when the story gained renewed national attention in early January 2014. Bonnie and John Raines and Keith Forsyth came forward to reveal how they and five associates had shattered FBI secrecy in late winter 1971 to obtain proof of government crimes. The story immediately captured my attention because it occurred less than an hour from my home and shared similarities with more recent disclosures by Ed Snowden my son. Within days of the initial news reports, my wife realized that she shared a mutual friend with the Raineses, which led to phone conversations with John and Bonnie. My wife and I had the pleasure of first meeting Bonnie, John, Keith and others in May 2014 at the Philadelphia premiere of Johanna Hamiltons film 1971. I admire these kind and wonderfully authentic people and always feel fortunate when we reconnect at events and conferences in different cities. The film documents their story a story about eight ordinary citizens who came together to accomplish something extraordinary.

The passage of time has proven the Media Eight to be great Americans courageous humanists who placed civic duty above self-interest and personal safety, to take necessary action to warn their fellow citizens of the FBIs disregard for both the law and the constitutional rights of many innocent Americans. The Media Eight exposed high crimes and abuses that senior government officials intended to cloak in secrecy crimes and abuses now documented as indisputable historical fact thanks to the skill and courage of the Media Eight.

Its difficult to fully comprehend the degree of personal sacrifice made by the eight Media activists to inform us, their fellow citizens, of the governments abusive overreach. The ongoing threat of harsh government reprisal at any moment was a burden they had to live with for years, if not decades. Yet that burden was superior to the alternative of submitting themselves to a U.S. Department of Justice that was, and remains, highly biased against citizens who expose government abuses that embarrass or implicate favored political elites. The passage of time has proven that it would have been a terrible decision for the Media Eight to surrender to a politically motivated justice system in 1971. Exposing themselves to that type of due process would have allowed the government to ruthlessly smear them, distract the public with propaganda, and sequester the truth-tellers to prison while providing a legion of parasitic media shills with talking points to distort or bury the truth. The same strategy is used to silence truth-tellers today, though the tactics are now far more sophisticated and insidious.

I empathize with the youngest of the Media Eight, Judi Feingold, who spent at least the first decade of her adult life exiled within her own country to avoid capture. My son also copied government files and gave them to journalists. Those journalists used the documents to expose government disregard for the constitutional rights of millions of Americans, as well as violations of both domestic and international law. My son now lives in exile, but considering the governments reprehensible treatment of other truth-tellers, detainees and prisoners over the past decade, Im genuinely thankful that he is on foreign soil. I do not believe that my son can find justice or safety on American soil for years, but the story of the Media Eight gives me hope that he will find peace and thrive while in exile and I have absolute confidence that over time, the truth will also prevail in his case. As was the case with J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, those who proclaim a need to govern in secrecy to protect We the People are too often frauds desperate to conceal the truth to protect their political ambition and personal interests. That was true in 1971, and it remains true today.

Betty Medsgers book The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoovers Secret FBI and Hamiltons film detail a crucial act of modern American civic leadership, a historic event that revealed important truths that every citizen should understand. The Media story of 1971 is a timeless lesson that is relevant to the challenges that We the People face today regarding secretive government malfeasance, including but not limited to legalized injustice, civil and human rights violations, extraordinary rendition, torture, the militarization of domestic law enforcement, and mass surveillance.

Parallels exist between the Media Eight, my sons ongoing story, and the experiences of fellow truth-tellers such as Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe, Jesselyn Radack, Diane Roark, Thomas Drake and many others. All questioned the judgment or veracity of senior government officials, and though each of these citizens spoke the truth, all paid a high price. The truth-tellers faced persecution, isolation and/or character attacks to varying degrees especially if their identity was known. The government conditions the media to use a deceptive lexicon to describe such citizens as whistle-blowers, criminals, leakers, traitors or rogues. They use such labels because describing them as what they are truth-tellers has paradoxical implications for a Justice Department attempting to persecute and prosecute them for daring to speak truth to power. Truth-teller is a context the government feared in 1971 and continues to fear today especially when the truth-telling has been criminalized. In principled societies, integrity is valued, and liars are reviled.

Even today, more than 40 years after the Media action exposed despicable U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agency behavior, some government apologists whine that it was an injustice that the Media Eight were not prosecuted. Ill posit that the only injustices were that J. Edgar Hoover did not live long enough to be prosecuted, that Richard Nixon was pardoned, and that others who betrayed their constitutional oaths were never held accountable. In 2014, its similarly unjust and disgraceful that James Clapper, the director of U.S. National Intelligence, continues to collect both a six-figure military pension and a six-figure government salary at the expense of the American taxpayer, despite lying under oath to those same American taxpayers via Congress. Conversely, the Media Eight disclosed truths that exposed government wrongdoing, but any U.S. Attorney would have leapt at the opportunity to represent the government in prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the rule of law in the 1970s. Fortunately, the statute of limitations has expired, and judicious citizens knowledgeable of the facts available today would likely agree, in hindsight, that it would have been a travesty of justice had they been prosecuted.

Go here to see the original:
Edward Snowden’s Father Speaks | News | Philadelphia ...

U.S. Law Enforcement Kept Database of U.S. Phone Calls Overseas

U.S. law enforcement until last year maintained a database of international phone calls that was obtained from telecommunications companies under subpoenas that dont require court approval.

The database tracked phone numbers that initiated and received calls and the time and duration of the communications. It allowed investigators to query a number when they had a reasonable articulable suspicion that it was linked to a federal criminal investigation, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration official said Thursday in a court filing.

The records didnt include content of the calls or personal identifying information, according to the filing.

A description of the database was disclosed as part of a case in federal court in Washington involving a suspect accused of illegally exporting U.S. goods and technology to Iran.

The National Security Agency collects phone records from U.S. telecommunications companies under a program that was disclosed by former government contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups argue that such data collection violates privacy. Government officials say its essential to combat terrorism. Those data collections must be reauthorized periodically by a special U.S. intelligence court.

The U.S. stopped using the law-enforcement database in 2013, according to the court document, a declaration filed by Robert Patterson, an assistant special agent in charge at the DEA. The program tracked calls from the U.S. to certain foreign countries, including Iran, according to Patterson.

In addition, all of the data has been deleted and the information is no longer being collected, according to a Justice Department statement today.

To contact the reporter on this story: Justin Blum in Washington at jblum4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Craig Gordon at cgordon39@bloomberg.net Bernard Kohn, Stephen West

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Originally posted here:
U.S. Law Enforcement Kept Database of U.S. Phone Calls Overseas

Obama sides with UK PM, calls for law enforcement-crackable encryption

President Obama has, for the first time, publicly acknowledged that encryption is a problem for law enforcement. With UK Prime Minister David Cameron alongside, demanded that there must be both ways to keep citizens' information private, but that there has to be a way to allow law enforcement to surveil both in real-time, as well as decrypt after-the-fact forensically, when a court deems it necessary. "Because this is a whole new world, as David [Cameron] says, the laws that might've been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. How we do that needs to be debated both here in the United States and in the UK" said the President.

"If we find evidence of a terrorist plot... and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can't penetrate that, that's a problem," said the President. Obama is referring to software by Apple and Google that both companies claim can't be decrypted, even with a court order in place.

Apple and other tech companies have "opted out" of playing a role in law enforcement by changing some messaging systems, such as email and chat, to use private encryption that the companies cannot break. Omitted by most governmental officials discussing the matter is the fact that law enforcement, if suitably inspired to do so, can generally can break most encryption systems, given time and tools already in their possession. End-to-end encryption makes it more difficult, and more laborious, for law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

Earlier in the week, Cameron said that he would seek a ban on end-to-end encrypted messaging, calling it a tool that terrorists use to effectively, and securely communicate. Cameron claimed that "I have a very simple principle to apply here," explained Cameron in his speech, "which should be at the heart of the legislature that will be necessary. The simple principle is this, 'In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people, which even in extremis, with a signed warrant from the Home Secretary personally, that we cannot read?'" He has since said that the remarks were misconstrued, but the intention of the Prime Minister's words seems clear enough.

Without going into specifics of when a court order would be issued for surveillance, Obama also said that "when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal, conforms with due process, rule of law and presents oversight, then that's a capability that we have to preserve."

By Electronista Staff

Continued here:
Obama sides with UK PM, calls for law enforcement-crackable encryption

David Cameron is "technologically illiterate" on encryption ban

The Prime Minister's plans to ban encryption technology are "technologically illiterate", Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert has said today (Friday 16 January).

Strong encryption technology is used by a number of major websites but under Cameron's plans websites would be required to store data and hand that over to the intelligence agencies.

Responding to David Cameron's proposals to allowBritish intelligence agencies to have the power to break the encryption technology Julian said:

Camerons plan to ban encryption technology means he is either cynically trying to sound tough on terror, or he simply doesnt have a clue what hes talking about. I wonder if the Prime Minister realises his ludicrous proposal is technologically illiterate?

We all know online shopping, online banking and private messaging all use encryption, so it is crazy to suggest we should ditch it. It would open ourselves to attack from anyone with 10 minutes hacking experience.

What is even more bizarre is Cameron has chosen to make this big announcement in the same week he has hotfooted it to Washington to call for greater cyber security. He is completely contradicting himself.

By trying to ban encryption the Tories risk serious damage to our economy, freedom, and security. It is vitally important that we tackle terrorism effectively - but robbing us all of our online security is no way to do it.

Read more from the original source:
David Cameron is "technologically illiterate" on encryption ban

Obama and Cameron’s ‘solutions’ for cybersecurity will make the internet worse

It would be funnier if it werent so true. Photograph: UPI /Landov / Barcroft Media

The current state of the US and UK governments ass-backwards approach to cybersecurity was on full display this week culminating with British Prime Minister David Cameron and President Obama meeting to discuss the issue at the White House on Friday. When it comes to cybersecurity, it seems the UK and US want to embrace every crazy idea except what we know actually works.

The UKs Cameron suggested earlier in the week he wants to outlaw certain forms of encryption, which could potentially lead to some of the worlds most popular messaging apps (like iMessage and WhatsApp) being banned in the UK. That speech had been ridiculed from all angles for the past few days, with various experts labeling it a nightmare for Internet security on par with authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China and economically devastating for the British information technology industry.

Meanwhile, the White House has proposed a huge expansion of penalties under the highly-controversial law that was used to prosecute Reddit co-founder and privacy rights advocate Aaron Swartz. If passed, the administrations proposal could further criminalize mundane Internet activity for example, potentially allowing for a ten-year jail sentence for sharing your HBO GO password all to supposedly target foreign hackers that the law would likely never reach.

Less than 24 hours before Cameron-Obama the meeting, the Guardian published a secret report based on previously unreleased Snowden documents showing that the US government is fully aware that encryption is vital for security, and that the government risked leaving themselves vulnerable if they didnt start implementing it on their own systems quicker. The British government likely knows this too: many of their employees use email encryption; and UK even recommend citizens use encryption to protect their data on a government website.

At the press conference after the meeting, Obama commendably didnt embrace Camerons proposal when asked about it, and even Cameron seemed to at least appear to back off his own anti-encryption proclamation, saying hes not trying to enunciate some new doctrine.

But just because Camerons been proven to be technically illiterate and may be attempting to publicly back away from his most radical proposal, that doesnt mean that he wont later push forward. FBI director Jim Comey proposed similar legislation to Camerons just a few months ago, and Cameron used eerily similar talking points in Washington on Friday as Comey did in late 2014. Plus. the rest of Camerons plan is downright scary for Internet privacy even without a formal encryption ban.

And then theres the White Houses so-called solution to the cybersecurity problem, which they unveiled earlier this week. President Obama introduced it saying we had to do something about incidents like the headline-grabbing Sony hack, or the juvenile hijacking of US Central Commands twitter account but what he didnt say was that those proposals wouldnt have stopped those attacks at all.

Part of the Obama administrations proposal would dramatically expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the oft-abused and notorious statute that the Justice Department used to threaten the late Internet activist Aaron Swartz with 35 years in jail. (Aaron later took his own life while awaiting trial.) The CFAA already has incredibly harsh penalties, so much so that theres been a movement for years to reduce them. And how the administration thinks increasing CFAA penalties is going to worry either North Korean hackers or ISIS sympathizers (or more likely pranksters) who take advantage of negligent password practices is anyones guess.

It would also would put countless security researchers at further risk of prosecution, the exact type of people the government should consulting with before making these ill-thought proposals, not driving underground.

Read the original:
Obama and Cameron’s ‘solutions’ for cybersecurity will make the internet worse

Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

President Barack Obama said Friday that police and spies should not be locked out of encrypted smartphones and messaging apps, taking his first public stance in a simmering battle over private communications in the digital age.

Apple, Google and Facebook have introduced encrypted products in the past half year that the companies say they could not unscramble, even if faced with a search warrant. Thats prompted vocal complaints from spy chiefs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and, this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Obamas comments came after two days of meetings with Cameron, and with the prime minister at his side.

If we find evidence of a terrorist plot and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we cant penetrate that, thats a problem, Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. Theyre patriots.

In the U.S., governments have long been able to access the contents of electronic communication, including phone calls, consumer email and social media, typically with warrants, through wiretaps and from technology companies themselves.

But the law that governs these practices is dated and doesnt mandate tech firms incorporate such features into modern apps. In the post-Edward Snowden era, many technology firms have turned encryption and zero-knowledge into marketing buzzwords.

The president on Friday argued there must be a technical way to keep information private, but ensure that police and spies can listen in when a court approves. The Clinton administration fought and lost a similar battle during the 1990s when it pushed for a clipper chip that would allow only the government to decrypt scrambled messages.

Thats a notable shift for the president. He sounded more like Jim Comey than anything else the White House has said in the past couple of months, said Stewart Baker, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, referring to the FBI director, who has criticized the tech companies new encryption policies.

Security experts have long argued such systems would hobble many anti-hacking tools, leaving computers exposed. For instance, if an encryption algorithm has a master key, it is inherently weaker because its possible for an outsider to steal that master key and crack the code.

Obama must now choose between competing priorities: the security of private information, or the ability of law enforcement to gather intelligence, said Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist at the American Civil Liberties Union.

More here:
Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

U.K. PM To Take His Anti-Encryption Drum-Banging To Obama’s Doorstep

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron is evidently not done banging the anti-encryption drum in public yet despite being slammed by Internet security experts, startup investors and others earlier this week for appearing to suggest he wants to outlawstrong encryption.

The widespread interpretation of Cameronscomments as signifying an intention to banencryption resulted in government sourcesdoing somehasty re-spinningof his words.Rather, they said, this is aboutCameron chest-beating on counter terrorism and trying toapply political pressure on Internet companies to backdoor their own services to give government agencies access.

In other words if you can get Internet companies to stop using end-to-end encryption and/or co-operate on installingbackdoors into strong encryption, thentheres no need to actuallyban encryption because government can get its hands on the user data its after anyway.

Workaround, baby, workaround.

The PMis this weekinWashington D.C. for a long scheduled meeting with President Obama, but, in the wake of last weeks terror attacks in Paris, itlooks likely Cameron willuse the opportunity of a joint podium with POTUS to push fora united front to apply morepressure to Internet companies to perforate their own security in the name of counter-terrorism surveillance. Amping up the rhetoric abroad, as he has done at home.

Both the WSJ and The Guardian are today reporting, via their own government sources, that Cameron intends to lobby Obama on encryption workarounds and specifically to urge U.S. Internet companies to provide access to user datato U.K. security services.

The Guardian quotes a government source saying: The prime ministers objective here is to get the U.S. companies to cooperate with us more, to make sure that our intelligence agencies get the information they need to keep us safe. That will be his approach in the discussion with President Obama how can we work together to get them to cooperate more, what is the best approach to encourage them to do more.

Cameron and Obama have also today penned a joint column in The Times newspaper (available outside the paywall via Facebook), headlinedSecurity and prosperity go hand in hand an indication the two leadersare thinking broadly on the same page when it comes to counter-terrorism strategy.

TechCrunch understands thatcybersecurity will certainly be on the tech discussion agenda for the meeting, although, when asked directly, the Downing Street press office declined to provide any official information on the meetingin advance of a scheduledpress conference tomorrow - including declining to confirm whether Cameron will be directly lobbyingObama to lean on U.S. Internet companiesto soften theirstance on encryption.

U.K. security services have alreadylaid down some advanced counter-terror rhetoric against U.S. Internet companies. For instance last Novemberthe head of the GCHQ spy agency madea direct public appeal to U.S. Internet companies to co-operateand hand over data on users when asked to do so by U.K. intelligence agencies.

See original here:
U.K. PM To Take His Anti-Encryption Drum-Banging To Obama’s Doorstep