@nethappenings
Stocks
‘Flash’ events hurt market liquidity for days: N.Y. Fed blog | Reuters http://ow.ly/R5K9F
Flash Boys Puts a Flashlight on Dark, Predatory HFT Trading | Dennis M. Kelleher http://ow.ly/R5Kou
The scariest reason China devalued the yuan, in one chart China employment market is showing strains http://ow.ly/R5Rnm
Ashley Madison
Notes on the Ashley-Madison dump http://ow.ly/R5SCf
https://twitter.com/rabite/status/633814926046416897
https://twitter.com/rabite/status/633826608890126336
https://twitter.com/rabite/status/633817724830023680
https://twitter.com/rabite/status/601694797863231488
– Are you a Californian worried about state deficit? Don’t worry, Ramon Hernandez of the CA FTB is looking for solutions on @adultfriendfind
.@Sidragon1 wouldn’t have to risk prison if FAA IT guys like Billy Enos found bugs instead of searching @adultfriendfind with state property
– Military legislative fellow Matt Daack used @ashleymadison to cheat on his wife with the House email he uses to evaluate classified data.
https://twitter.com/rabite/status/633813156641525761
-John Tokarczyk of the Attorney General’s office hard at work investigating potential sex partners on @ashleymadison
https://twitter.com/rabite/status/633814926046416897
From page 46 of the “How to Hack a Jeep” manual: masscan http://ow.ly/R5T6H
Hillary Emailgate
Hillary’s Secret Email @clintonemail.com culprits reg to Eric P. @eric_hothem, Teneo holdings http://ow.ly/R5WUf Douglas J. Band http://ow.ly/R5YLy
The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails http://ow.ly/R5UsP
How the FBI Took Down the Botnet Designed to Be ‘Impossible’ to Take Down | Motherboard http://ow.ly/R5V5b
Hillary Clinton will hand over to the Justice Department the private email server http://ow.ly/R5WHF
The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails “TOP SECRET // SI // TK // NOFORN”
Most seriously, the inspector general assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the inspector general’s report. http://ow.ly/R5VPv
For 3 months Hillary Clinton’s email was unencrypted, open to spies http://ow.ly/R5W6R
BITCOIN
Bitcoin at a crossroads: Bitcoin Foundation’s Andresen and Hearn propose Bitcoin XT – New York Business Journal http://ow.ly/R6bum
Money Laundering
Sons of Indicted Swiss Financial Adviser Keep Business in the Family
London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert http://ow.ly/R6ugD
Cryptography
bcrypt There are two kinds of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files. This book is about the latter. — Preface to Applied Cryptography by Bruce Schneier
Tag: Privacy
A Critical Moment for the Future of the Internet | Techonomy
A Critical Moment for the Future of the Internet By Fadi Chehadé
The Internet, the greatest invention of our generation — several generations in fact — is in many ways a reflection of the American Dream. It’s vast and open, unlimited in its potential reach. It’s inclusive and welcoming. Anyone can be part of it and make a difference. The fastest growing part of the global economy is Internet-based, and the Internet accounts for a significant and growing portion of global GDP. According to Boston Consulting Group, the Internet is contributing up to 8 percent of GDP in some economies, powering growth and creating jobs.
You’d be correct in arguing it’s an American-made innovation. We can trace the roots of the Internet back some 50 years to a U.S. Defense Department research program. But as the Internet has expanded globally, it’s become increasingly clear that one government cannot lay claim to it. The Internet is a worldwide resource. It belongs to everyone.
Appropriately, the U.S. Government has long understood the Internet’s global potential. That’s why it helped create the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1998 — a neutral, independent and private-sector led organization designed to coordinate the Internet’s domain name system functions. Its operations are not made under the direction of one government, but through a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development process involving business, civil society, engineers, academics, everyday users and many governments (around 150 of them participate). Under that system, the Internet has flourished, connecting over 3 billion of us, through our billions of devices.
Over the past two decades, the U.S. Government has gradually lightened its touch in its stewardship over the key Internet domain name system functions operated by ICANN. These technical functions are known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. The U.S. Government is now prepared to give up stewardship over the IANA functions altogether.
But why? And why now?
The U.S. Government always envisioned that its role in the IANA functions would be temporary. In March of 2014, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition out of its stewardship of the IANA functions. In its announcement, NTIA cited its belief that ICANN as an organization has matured and improved its accountability, transparency and its technical competence. NTIA also asserted that the Internet, managed and driven by the global community of diverse stakeholders, is in very good hands.
The current model of Internet governance is the only one that can keep pace with the global expansion of users, including where, how, how often and in what language they’re using it. Continual evolution is key: Internet governance must evolve to meet the changing needs of all users to ensure the network remains available, open, stable and secure. A report by Microsoft projects that the number of Internet users will grow to 4.7 billion in 2025, 75 percent of that growth coming from emerging economies. We must work together to take into consideration this changing landscape.
Many believe that if the U.S. Government does not step aside, other governments, including some that are uncomfortable with an open and inclusive Internet, will step in to try to capture control of it through intergovernmental organizations. Alternatively, governments could become motivated to break away from the one, unified Internet to form their own national or regional networks, essentially fragmenting the Internet we know today. The result of this could be a patchwork of incompatible networks spread across different nation states, with long-term social, cultural, political and economic casualties. Why take that chance?
The ICANN multi-stakeholder community brings together thousands of representatives from large and small businesses and civil society with technical experts, researchers, academics and end users from all over the world. Our role at ICANN is to coordinate this community. We are neutral and independent facilitators.
Many stakeholders have been working tirelessly over the past year to meet NTIA’s guidelines for the transition of their stewardship role to the global multi-stakeholder community. Since March 2014, the community has spent more than 400 hours together on calls and in meetings, working to develop a proposal that meets the following guidelines:
• Supports and enhances the existing multi-stakeholder model.
• Maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System.
• Meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
• Maintains the openness of the Internet.
They also have to take into account that NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces NTIA’s role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.
Should the transition fail, the United States could lose credibility in its quest to maintain an open, multi-stakeholder-driven Internet. The risk of fragmentation will grow and U.S. and global economies risk losing the commercial and social benefits inherent in the single, global, free and open Internet where innovation happens, and on which we’ve all come to rely.
I invite you to please join our process. If you have concerns, voice them. If you agree with the fundamental principles the proposal is based on, share that. Engage with the multi-stakeholder community and share your thoughts and opinions. It is critical to the success of our effort and the future of the Internet that we have as much participation in the process as possible.
Fadi Chehadé is the president and CEO of ICANN, a not-for-profit, public benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. He will be speaking on a session at the Techonomy Policy conference June 9 on the Worrisome Future of the Internet.
To attend, you can register here. Original article published at Techonomy.com.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/techonomy/a-critical-moment-for-the_b_7513308.html
Calling Security experts / technologists opposing purported info sharing bills that actually waive privacy laws and enable more surveillance.
Hello,
As you may know, there are three cybersecurity information sharing bills pending before Congress right now. These bills would weaken privacy laws and enable surveillance at a time when we need stronger privacy protections. These are surveillance bills, not security bills.
Every one of the bills is an end run around privacy laws in the name of improving security information sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bills define “cyber threat indicators” in a confusing manner that could include server logs, the contents of emails, damage estimates, and more. This kind of private data is not what is generally needed to secure systems. Nevertheless, the bills say that private entities will be immune from liability for sharing this information with DHS (and other parts of government) “notwithstanding” any privacy laws.
Surveillance reform advocates are trying to stop these bills. There is a lot of support in Congress and from the White House. So, to succeed, we need your help and we need it now. We expect the bills to come to a vote mid-April.
As a security expert, would you be willing to sign a letter helping to educate Congress about what kind of information experts actually share to further cybersecurity and secure systems from future attack? By helping Congress understand what information is useful in security, we can stop a bill that would needlessly waive privacy.
Please let me know if you can sign on by no later than 8pm ET Sunday, April 12. Email to jennifer at law.stanford.edu your name, title and affiliation. We plan to use your titles and affiliations for information purposes only, not to indicate that your employer is also signing the letter. For example, my signature would be Jennifer Stisa Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, Stanford Center for Internet and Society* and the asterick text would say “*Titles and affiliations are for information purposes only.” If you want to sign but don’t want to include your title or affiliation, or don’t have one, please indicate so, and we will respect your wishes.
My plan is to circulate the letter to the sponsors of the bills and to the rest of Congress on Monday, April 13.
Please feel free to email me or set up a call with me if you have any questions about the bills or the letter.
Once again, I can be reached at jennifer at law.stanford.edu
Finally, please do forward this request to anyone you think might be knowledgeable about security information sharing, and interested in sighing the letter.
For more information on these laws, you can read here:
Jennifer Granick—The Right Way to Share Information and Improve Cybersecurity: http://justsecurity.org/21498/share-information-improve-cybersecurity/
OTI—VERSION 2.0 OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S CYBER INFORMATION SHARING ACT IS CYBER-SURVEILLANCE, NOT CYBERSECURITY:http://www.newamerica.org/oti/version-20-of-the-senate-intelligence-committees-cyber-information-sharing-act-is-cyber-surveillance-not-cybersecurity/
CDT—Analysis of Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014: https://cdt.org/insight/analysis-of-feinstein-chambliss-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-of-2014/
Thank you for your time, attention, and assistance in this important matter.
Jennifer Granick
Espionage: FBI would rather prosecutors drop cases than disclose stingray details
Not only is the FBI actively attempting to stop the public from knowing about stingrays, it has also forced local law enforcement agencies to stay quiet even in court and during public hearings, too.
FBI would rather prosecutors drop cases than disclose stingray details
New documents released by NYCLU shed light on Erie County’s use of spying tool.
By Cyrus Farivar
Apr 7 2015
<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/>
Not only is the FBI actively attempting to stop the public from knowing about stingrays, it has also forced local law enforcement agencies to stay quiet even in court and during public hearings, too.
An FBI agreement, published for the first time in unredacted form on Tuesday, clearly demonstrates the full extent of the agency’s attempt to quash public disclosure of information about stingrays. The most egregious example of this is language showing that the FBI would rather have a criminal case be dropped to protect secrecy surrounding the stingray.
Relatively little is known about how, exactly, stingrays, known more generically as cell-site simulators, are used by law enforcement agencies nationwide, although new documents have recently been released showing how they have been purchased and used in some limited instances. Worse still, cops have lied to courts about their use. Not only can stingrays be used to determine location by spoofing a cell tower, they can also be used to intercept calls and text messages. Typically, police deploy them without first obtaining a search warrant.
Ars previously published a redacted version of this document in February 2015, which had been acquired by the Minneapolis Star Tribune in December 2014. The fact that these two near-identical documents exist from the same year (2012) provides even more evidence that this language is boilerplate and likely exists in other agreements with other law enforcement agencies nationwide.
The new document, which was released Tuesday by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) in response to its March 2015 victory in a lawsuitfiled against the Erie County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO) in Northwestern New York, includes this paragraph:
In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings.
In the version of the document previously obtained in Minnesota, the rest of the sentence after the phrase “limited to” was entirely redacted.
Mariko Hirose, a NYCLU staff attorney, told Ars that she has never seen an agreement like this before.
“This seems very broad in scope and undermines public safety and the workings of the criminal justice system,” she said.
Your tax dollars at work
The FBI letter also explicitly confirms a practice that some local prosecutors have engaged in previously, which is to drop criminal charges rather than disclose exactly how a stingray is being used. Last year, prosecutors in Baltimore did just that during a robbery trial—there, Baltimore Police Detective John L. Haley cited a non-disclosure agreement, and he declined to describe in detail how he obtained the location of the suspect.
The newly revealed sections state:
[snip]