Feds only have themselves to blame for Apple and Google’s smartphone encryption efforts

Summary: The U.S. government is crying foul over Apple and Google's efforts to bolster smartphone encryption. Because accusations that they're going "beyond the law" goes both ways.

NEW YORK For the past two weeks, federal agencies and the executive branch have launched acacophony of critique of Apple and Google for bolstering the encryption on their users' smartphones.

That, the opposition camp says, will result in drug dealers, pedophiles, identity thieves, and other violent criminals evading capture, leading to an uptick in crime. That will affect millions of Americans who each year are classified as victims of theft and robbery, violence, and sexual crimes.

Made up of the FBIand the NSA,the outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, andmembers of Congress, they are calling for laws to be changed, and Apple and Google to face sanctions for their privacy protections.

But this was described by The Guardian's Trevor Timmas a "misleading PR offensive" to scare Americans into believing encrypted devices are a bad thing.

The federal agencies' opposition to Apple and Google's move to double-down on device security is nothing short of fearmongering.

To make matters worse, on Saturday a piece by The Washington Post's editorial board declared there must be a "compromise" on smartphone encryption, adding yet another major voice to the chorus of criticism.

The "too-long, didn't read" version is that the Post's editorial board believes that this level of security affects "relatively few cases" and is "not about mass surveillance." It adds that this "seems reasonable and not excessively intrusive."

Its solution? A "back door"for law enforcement exactly the kind of back door that Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley technology giants denied they installed in the wake of the PRISM program's disclosure.

In a naive example of wishful thinking, the Post's board idealizes that a "kind of secure golden key" that Apple and Google would retain and would use only when a court has approved a search warrant.

See the rest here:
Feds only have themselves to blame for Apple and Google's smartphone encryption efforts

Your new favorite NFV initiative: OPNFV

ITEM: A collective of telecoms operators and vendors (mainly the latter) has banded together with the Linux Foundation to develop an open-source platform to speed up development of NFV.

Its called the Open Platform for NFV Project (OPNFV), it's billed as a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project,and it aims todevelop a carrier-grade, integrated, open source reference platform that operators and vendors can use to ensure consistency and interoperability between various open source components.

According to a statement from the group, an open platform that provides continuous testing for carrier-grade service performance is essential for telecoms players to get the most out of network virtualization.

To its credit, OPNFV realizes its not working in a vacuum, and is taking a collaborative approach with other NFV-related groups:

Because multiple open source NFV building blocks already exist, OPNFV will work with upstream projects to coordinate continuous integration and testing while filling development gaps.

[]

While not developing standards, OPNFV will work closely with ETSIs NFV ISG, among others, to drive consistent implementation of standards for an open NFV reference platform. When open source software development is aligned with standards development, it can root out issues early, identify resolutions and become the de facto codebase, resulting in a far more economical approach to platform development.

It also has the blessing of OpenDaylight and OpenStack, both of which will collaborate with OPNFV.

OPNFV says it will license new components under the Apache License Version 2.0 and will work within the licensing requirements of upstream projects in order to contribute code back to these projects. A Board of Directors and Technical Steering Committee (TSC) will govern the initiative.

The group says its initial scope will focus on building "NFV infrastructure (NFVI) and Virtualized Infrastructure Management (VIM) leveraging existing open source components where possible.

Follow this link:
Your new favorite NFV initiative: OPNFV

Bård Vegar Solhjells dialogue with Edward Snowden

Brd Vegar Solhjell (BV): So as you know by now I have been trying to contact you for quite some time

Edward Snowden (ES): Yes, I know. I am so sorry. It has been very difficult to handle communication. For someone in my position, being watched, being tracked, there are a lot of things that one has to do to manage to keep ones physical location protected, and at the same time being able to interact with the global community and being able to communicate. That is very difficult in the technical sense. It also causes you to stop and think about, not only how can I tackle this to fix my immediate problems, to have these calls, work, discuss a certain issue in a certain form or event. But how can we apply these lessons to help other people? I have quite a lot of technical knowledge but there are so many journalists and activists and even people in government, who do not have these capabilities and therefore they are left out of the conversation entirely because they cannot find secure methods of communications. Or they do participate, but at their own risk which can be very dangerous. Thats my long way of saying I am so sorry that I have been so difficult to get a hold of.

BV: If there is one think I totally understand after reading about your story, interviews with you and other sources, it is that you are careful with security and how you communicate with people. And let me also say, on a more personal note, that the personal sacrifice you have made is immense. I did not know this when I started reading about you as a person and what you had been able to convey to world. I just have to say that I admire you for that. I dont think many of us would be able or willing to do what you have done. That must have been really tough.

ES: Thank you. It was a challenge. In my position I felt like I had witnessed something that was tremendously wrong and there were many other people around me who had the same feeling. I discussed this with my colleagues, co-workers and my supervisors, complained about this and said: Is this really right? Is this what we should be doing? Other people also brought the same concerns to me. So it was common knowledge within the NSA that we had crossed the line. We had gone too far. But everybody knew that there was no strong whistle blower protection at the time. There was no way to bring it to the higher levels and get it changed, without ending up in jail. So everybody around me, many were young parents and like everybody else they had things that they cared about, that they could not justify leaving. I had the same struggle. I was with my partner of almost 10 years. I loved her very much. We were really successful. We had our own home in Hawaii. The lifestyle was very fulfilling and I was making a lot of money for someone who did not have very many official qualifications.

But it got to the point where I had to think about the fact that if I didnt do this, who would? And if I dont do this now, what happens next? Because what we have seen the last year/ year and a half is not merely that these systems exist. But they have caused a lot of harm to basically the boundary of our rights, what we consider our national liberties, and the normal relationship we have between our governments and us, the citizens that are being governed. These programs appeared without any public debate. They appeared without vote in the peoples parliaments and congresses around the world. The question to me became, that if I sit on this and do not say anything about it now and just wait for someone else to do it - which is what I was really hoping for, nobody really wants to stand up and put themselves on the spot - what will happen? What if no one does and we wait another 3/ 5/ 10 years and these programs become more solidified? And ultimately it became to me a question, not about surveillance - which was my initial main concern, the abuse that I witnessed - but more importantly it was a change in the relationship between the governing and the governed. It really was about the structure of our society changing, the structure of our freedoms changing. And ultimately, if I did not do that, it would not only alter the world that I would live in, but the world the people I loved lived in, the partner of mine of 10 years and my family. And I do not want them to live in a world where these things take place.

I realized that I could change this. I could say something about it, but I was also thinking that it was going to cost me too much, so this was something that someone else would have to do. Obviously, yes it has had costs, but it has also brought me a deep sense of satisfaction. My family is proud of me. I have been able to keep all of the relationships I had, I do not feel like I have lost any. So it has actually been liberating to put myself out there. To be attacked by my government, but supported by my people. Because when I actually took the step out there I feared that I would be totally vilified, which we saw happen previously, particularly in government circles, even in Europe. The accusations came: I am a traitor. I work for the Chinese. Then I left China and they said: well he works for the Russians, not the Chinese. But it is really incredible to see that people are starting to look a little more critically, a little more deeply, at these issues. Not just about surveillance and how we are being watched, but about how we are being ruled. The question is: do we want leaders who represent us, or do we want rulers, who make decisions for us in our name, but without our participation, our knowledge or consent? I have made my decision about that.

BV: It is almost moving to hear you say that, and it reminds me of the many great human right activists I have met throughout the years. All of them had been in a situation where they knew something was wrong and had a deep sense that they should do something about it. Most times a lot of people shared that sense, but only a few have that extra courage to make the sacrifice themselves. It is impressive and inspiring to hear that you were actually able to take that step. And as you probably already know I, together with a colleague, nominated you to the Nobel Peace Prize.

ES: I never expected anything like that. It came as a tremendous surprise and it is a tremendous honor. I have to say that we both probably recognize that it is somewhat unlikely that the Nobel committee would back something like that but..

BV: You are not the odds favorite I can tell you that.

ES: Right. But I am honored that anybody would consider nominating me, particularly someone like you who represents so many people. Because again, it is not about me, it is about us, and the values that we represent. It is about the principles of how we want to live. So, all I can say is thank you.

See the original post:
Bård Vegar Solhjells dialogue with Edward Snowden

Bård Vegard Solhjells dialogue with Edward Snowden

Brd Vegar Solhjell (BV): So as you know by now I have been trying to contact you for quite some time

Edward Snowden (ES): Yes, I know. I am so sorry. It has been very difficult to handle communication. For someone in my position, being watched, being tracked, there are a lot of things that one has to do to manage to keep ones physical location protected, and at the same time being able to interact with the global community and being able to communicate. That is very difficult in the technical sense. It also causes you to stop and think about, not only how can I tackle this to fix my immediate problems, to have these calls, work, discuss a certain issue in a certain form or event. But how can we apply these lessons to help other people? I have quite a lot of technical knowledge but there are so many journalists and activists and even people in government, who do not have these capabilities and therefore they are left out of the conversation entirely because they cannot find secure methods of communications. Or they do participate, but at their own risk which can be very dangerous. Thats my long way of saying I am so sorry that I have been so difficult to get a hold of.

BV: If there is one think I totally understand after reading about your story, interviews with you and other sources, it is that you are careful with security and how you communicate with people. And let me also say, on a more personal note, that the personal sacrifice you have made is immense. I did not know this when I started reading about you as a person and what you had been able to convey to world. I just have to say that I admire you for that. I dont think many of us would be able or willing to do what you have done. That must have been really tough.

ES: Thank you. It was a challenge. In my position I felt like I had witnessed something that was tremendously wrong and there were many other people around me who had the same feeling. I discussed this with my colleagues, co-workers and my supervisors, complained about this and said: Is this really right? Is this what we should be doing? Other people also brought the same concerns to me. So it was common knowledge within the NSA that we had crossed the line. We had gone too far. But everybody knew that there was no strong whistle blower protection at the time. There was no way to bring it to the higher levels and get it changed, without ending up in jail. So everybody around me, many were young parents and like everybody else they had things that they cared about, that they could not justify leaving. I had the same struggle. I was with my partner of almost 10 years. I loved her very much. We were really successful. We had our own home in Hawaii. The lifestyle was very fulfilling and I was making a lot of money for someone who did not have very many official qualifications.

But it got to the point where I had to think about the fact that if I didnt do this, who would? And if I dont do this now, what happens next? Because what we have seen the last year/ year and a half is not merely that these systems exist. But they have caused a lot of harm to basically the boundary of our rights, what we consider our national liberties, and the normal relationship we have between our governments and us, the citizens that are being governed. These programs appeared without any public debate. They appeared without vote in the peoples parliaments and congresses around the world. The question to me became, that if I sit on this and do not say anything about it now and just wait for someone else to do it - which is what I was really hoping for, nobody really wants to stand up and put themselves on the spot - what will happen? What if no one does and we wait another 3/ 5/ 10 years and these programs become more solidified? And ultimately it became to me a question, not about surveillance - which was my initial main concern, the abuse that I witnessed - but more importantly it was a change in the relationship between the governing and the governed. It really was about the structure of our society changing, the structure of our freedoms changing. And ultimately, if I did not do that, it would not only alter the world that I would live in, but the world the people I loved lived in, the partner of mine of 10 years and my family. And I do not want them to live in a world where these things take place.

I realized that I could change this. I could say something about it, but I was also thinking that it was going to cost me too much, so this was something that someone else would have to do. Obviously, yes it has had costs, but it has also brought me a deep sense of satisfaction. My family is proud of me. I have been able to keep all of the relationships I had, I do not feel like I have lost any. So it has actually been liberating to put myself out there. To be attacked by my government, but supported by my people. Because when I actually took the step out there I feared that I would be totally vilified, which we saw happen previously, particularly in government circles, even in Europe. The accusations came: I am a traitor. I work for the Chinese. Then I left China and they said: well he works for the Russians, not the Chinese. But it is really incredible to see that people are starting to look a little more critically, a little more deeply, at these issues. Not just about surveillance and how we are being watched, but about how we are being ruled. The question is: do we want leaders who represent us, or do we want rulers, who make decisions for us in our name, but without our participation, our knowledge or consent? I have made my decision about that.

BV: It is almost moving to hear you say that, and it reminds me of the many great human right activists I have met throughout the years. All of them had been in a situation where they knew something was wrong and had a deep sense that they should do something about it. Most times a lot of people shared that sense, but only a few have that extra courage to make the sacrifice themselves. It is impressive and inspiring to hear that you were actually able to take that step. And as you probably already know I, together with a colleague, nominated you to the Nobel Peace Prize.

ES: I never expected anything like that. It came as a tremendous surprise and it is a tremendous honor. I have to say that we both probably recognize that it is somewhat unlikely that the Nobel committee would back something like that but..

BV: You are not the odds favorite I can tell you that.

ES: Right. But I am honored that anybody would consider nominating me, particularly someone like you who represents so many people. Because again, it is not about me, it is about us, and the values that we represent. It is about the principles of how we want to live. So, all I can say is thank you.

More:
Bård Vegard Solhjells dialogue with Edward Snowden