Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans We’ve been chasing ET for millennia with nothing concrete to show for it. Aside from conspiracy theory claims that the US government has an alien spacecraft hidden away somewhere, the search for alien life has been a complete bust. Michael Masters, a professor of biological anthropology […]
View full post on AmIHackerProof.com
Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans Boris Johnson is likely to approve the use of Huawei technology in the UK’s new 5G network against the pleas of the US government, a former national security adviser has said. Sir Mark Lyall Grant, who was Theresa May’s national security adviser, said that the security […]
View full post on AmIHackerProof.com
Since the Trump administration’s assassination of a top Iranian general brought the US to the brink of war, Senator Bernie Sanders has made frequent statements and appearances in which he has denounced the recklessness of the Trump administration and opposed a new war with Iran.
In addition to heavy activity on his presidential campaign’s social media accounts, Sanders has also made the rounds on talk shows, including the Late Show on CBS, the Today Show on NBC, and an interview on public radio.
This has been accompanied by the systematic promotion of Sanders, within pseudo-left and left-liberal publications, as the only anti-war candidate in the presidential election. Typical were headlines in Jacobin such as “Trump Wants to Drag Us Into War With Iran. Bernie Is the Candidate to Stop Him,” and in the Nation, “Bernie Sanders Is the Anti-War Candidate.”
Many people naturally assume that Sanders’ professed “democratic socialism” also means that the 78 year-old senator is an opponent of imperialist war. But in reality, since first entering Congress in 1991, Sanders has compiled a lengthy record of support for war and a defense of the predatory interests of American imperialism.
In one politically revealing statement made during his January 8 interview on NPR, Sanders declared:
“We should use our wealth and our resources, through carrots and sticks, to bring countries together, to end the kind of terrible conflicts that we are seeing all over the world, to strengthen international organizations where people can sit down and argue rather than shoot guns or drop bombs against each other.” In plain language, this means Sanders supports the use of military power, combined with diplomatic pressure, to enforce an international geopolitical order which is dominated by the United States.
“Now, I’m not a pacifist,” he hastened to add. “There are times when war may be necessary. But I believe, as somebody who as a young person opposed the Vietnam War, which was such a disaster for my generation, as somebody who helped lead the effort against the war in Iraq, which was such a disaster for our younger people, that I will do everything I can to resolve international conflict through diplomacy, through negotiations and not through the continuation of endless wars. Enough is enough.”
When Sanders here refers to “necessary wars,” he is not referring to popular revolutions against bankrupt social orders, or revolts by colonial peoples against their imperial masters. He is referring instead to those wars which are “necessary” to advance the interests of American imperialism.
Sanders’ record demonstrates what he considers “necessary wars.” In the first place, it includes the 1993 US intervention in the Somalian Civil War, in which the US deployed death squads from the Army Rangers, Delta Force and other special forces units to the impoverished but strategically located African nation to decapitate factions opposed to the establishment of a US puppet regime. It also includes the NATO air assaults against Serbia in 1999, launched on the pretext of stopping an imminent ethnic cleansing of Kosovars.
In 2001, Sanders participated in a near-unanimous vote in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan. Today—now that the near 20-year war is widely unpopular—Sanders conveniently declares that his earlier vote was a “mistake.” But he has continued to endorse US wars in the Middle East, including the US proxy war in Syria.
Sanders has also supported Israel’s repeated assaults on Gaza, imperialist war crimes made possible with the support of the United States. In a 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders shouted down an antiwar protester who challenged his support for Israel as it was committing egregious crimes against the Palestinian population.
Moreover, Sanders has publicly voiced support for the use of assassinations and “extraordinary rendition” in the so-called “War on Terror.” In 2015, when asked whether anti-terrorism policies under a Sanders administration would include drones and special forces, Sanders replied that he supported drones, “all that and more.” In his interview with NPR, Sanders deflected when asked whether he would leave “special operations” forces in Iraq after withdrawing ground troops.
Where Sanders has voted against military conflict, as in his vote against the Iraq War in 2002, he voted along with the majority of congressional Democrats. But this did not stop Sanders for voting repeatedly for massive military spending bills in the years after the invasion of Iraq. Sanders repeatedly describes the Iraq War as a “disaster” or a foreign policy debacle—but never as a crime whose architects should be prosecuted.
Sanders’ support for war is closely connected to his longstanding support for trade war with China—a position which raises the danger of a shooting war with a nuclear power and the world’s most populous country. In fact, his first piece of legislation in Congress was a bill he co-sponsored, along with Nancy Pelosi, opposed to establishing favorable trade relations with China. Since the election of Trump, Sanders has alternated between overtures of support for Trump’s trade war measures with China and attacks on Trump and even fellow Democrats for not committing sufficiently to a conflict with China.
This record is generally unknown to Sanders’ own supporters, in large part because, except for occasional verbal shows of opposition, which are designed to conceal his actual record and mislead popular opposition to war, Sanders has kept a studied public silence on foreign policy throughout his career.
But Sanders’ support for US imperialism exposes his professed “democratic socialism” as a fraud, since it is impossible to oppose the policies of the financial oligarchy at home while supporting wars fought on their behalf abroad. His support for over a quarter century of war, waged by the American capitalist class in a homicidal struggle to maintain its world dominance, is the clearest indication that, beneath his left-sounding rhetoric, Sanders is in fact a pro-capitalist politician.
Since the 2016 primaries, as Sanders has been elevated from the margins of the Democratic Party to one of its top public figures, he has been compelled to make more frequent and lengthy public statements on foreign policy, beginning with a major speech in 2017.
In that speech, made at the site of Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946, Sanders proclaimed his support for wars for “democracy” and “humanitarian intervention” and pledged his support for the Democratic Party’s warmongering against Russia and Syria. By his choice of venue and his praise in his speech for presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, the architects of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Sanders implicitly cloaked himself in the mantle of Cold War-era anticommunism, signaling to the ruling class that he can be a reliable defender of their predatory interests.
In his criticisms of Trump’s drive to war against Iran, he is articulating not the deep hatred of the population for war but the tactical concerns of the Democratic Party. This is a fundamentally pro-war opposition, which is concerned primarily that Trump, in assassinating General Qassem Suleimani, acted rashly without making adequate preparations for a war with Iran, both from the standpoint of troop deployments in the Middle East and from the standpoint of conditioning the American public for the enormous material and human costs of such a war.
Moreover, the Democratic Party is concerned that a war with Iran would tie up hundreds of thousands of US troops which might be otherwise deployed against Russia, which they see as US imperialism’s chief adversary. Their demand that Trump continue his predecessor Obama’s military buildup against Russia is what lies at the heart of their campaign to impeach Trump and brand him as a stooge of Putin, a campaign which Sanders has supported.
Only a month ago, even in the midst of their vote to impeach Trump, congressional Democrats voted to hand him a $738 billion military budget, one of the largest in history. In the House, members of “the squad,” congresswomen aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, were able to posture as opponents of war by casting meaningless votes against a budget whose passage was already secured. In the Senate, Sanders did not even make a show of opposition, deciding instead to abstain.
In promoting himself as a leading anti-war figure, Sanders is preparing a carefully laid-out political trap for the tens of millions of workers and young people who are opposed to war and deeply concerned about the devastating consequences, both at home and abroad, of a massive new war in the Middle East.
This is a repeat of the role which Sanders played in the 2016 primaries. He ran in order to capture the mass opposition to poverty, inequality and war among workers and youth, which has motivated a rapid and growing interest in socialism, in order to channel it back behind the Democratic Party where it could trapped and disoriented.
Sanders’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton, widely reviled as a warmonger and Wall Street hack, in the general election enabled Trump to capture some of this opposition through his right-wing populism, under conditions where workers were left with no other way to register their opposition to the entire political setup.
A genuine anti-war movement must be based on the working class, in complete opposition to all of the capitalist parties and their political enablers, and on the basis of genuine socialism, which seeks to put an end to war by abolishing its source, the capitalist system itself.
Contribute to the fight for socialism in 2020
2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.
In March of last year, Mark Zuckerberg made a dramatic pledge: Facebook would apply end-to-end encryption to user communications across all of its platforms by default. The move would grant strong new protections to well over a billion users. It’s also not happening any time soon.
What Zuckerberg didn’t spell out at the time is just how difficult that transition would be to pull off, and not just in terms of political hurdles from encryption-averse law enforcement or a shift in Facebook’s business model. Encrypting Facebook Messenger alone represents a herculean technical challenge. According to one of the Facebook engineers leading the effort, a version of Messenger that’s fully end-to-end encrypted by default remains years away.
“I’ll be honest right now and say we’re still in a place of having more questions than answers,” said Jon Millican, Facebook’s software engineer for Messenger privacy, in a talk today at the Real World Crypto conference in New York. “While we have made progress in the planning, it turns out that adding end-to-end encryption to an existing system is incredibly challenging, and involves fundamentally rethinking almost everything.”
Millican’s presentation at the conference, in fact, wasn’t about how Facebook plans to pull off the transition to default encryption for Messenger, which currently offers the feature only through its Secret Conversations mode. Instead, it seemed aimed at explaining the many hurdles to making that transition, and asking the cryptography community for ideas about how to solve them.
Millican readily admitted that means Facebook users shouldn’t expect to see a default encryption rollout for several years. That also likely means the company’s planned integration of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram messaging will take at least as long, given that all three would likely need to be end-to-end encrypted to avoid undermining the existing default protections in WhatsApp.
“We publicly announced the plan years in advance of being able to actually ship it,” Millican said of Messenger’s encryption rollout in an interview with WIRED ahead of his conference talk, while declining to say when exactly Facebook expects the rollout to be complete. “There are no imminent changes coming here. This is going to be a long process. We’re dedicated to getting this right rather than doing it quickly.”
“If this is taking several years, maybe they’re not putting their money where their mouth is.”
Matthew Green, Johns Hopkins University
Facebook Messenger’s bounty of features—video calls, group messaging, GIFs, stickers, payments, and more—almost all currently depend on a Facebook server being able to access the contents of messages. In an end-to-end encrypted setup, only the people at the ends of a conversation would possess the keys on their devices to decrypt messages, requiring that more of Messenger’s mechanics be moved to apps and browsers. Facebook’s servers would act only as blind routers, passing messages on without being able to read them—which also keep them safer from government agencies or other snoops.
Millican argues that getting to that point will require rebuilding every feature of Facebook Messenger from the ground up. “We’re looking at a full-stack rethink and re-architecture of the entire product,” he says. “We’re not just adding end-to-end encryption to a product, we’re building an end-to-end encrypted product.”
Apple may present another model of how to achieve the sort of massive end-to-end encrypted network Facebook has committed to create: It’s managed to build rich features and end-to-end encryption by default into iMessage. But it doesn’t have the sort of full-featured, independent web interface that Facebook Messenger offers, which presents other challenges, since it’s designed to allow users to send messages from any device. (WhatsApp’s web interface, like its desktop app, only works when it’s linked with a user’s phone.)
Sweeping law changes proposed by an official inquiry into last year’s election and foreign interference have taken too long to be of use for next year’s election, Justice Minister Andrew Little says.
Parliament’s Justice Select Committee on Tuesday released the findings of its long-delayed report into the 2017 election and 2016 local body elections.
Major recommendations in a lengthy list of 55 include handing control of local elections from councils to the Electoral Commission and giving the Commission powers to enforce and investigate minor breaches of electoral law (major breaches would stay with the police).
They also cover changes to foreign donations, a ban on foreign Government’s owning New Zealand media organisations, changes to advertising laws, stricter requirements on parties to properly check the source of donations and recommendations aimed at defending against misinformation and hacking during the next election.
But Justice Minister Andrew Little, who has already introduced a series of changes to electoral laws in this term in Government, says the report has come back too late to be of any use before voters head to the polls in 2020.
“The inquiry has been going for over 18 months … It’s unfortunate that the delay means that we pretty much won’t be able to take anything else out of the report to make changes,” Little told reporters.
“When you leave it to two weeks before Christmas before an election year to recommend changes to the Electoral Act it’s pretty hard to make changes.”
Little has already introduced legislation based on the Electoral Commission’s recommendations and says he couldn’t wait any longer.
Changes already put forward by the Government include a ban on most foreign donations announced last week, and allowing voting at supermarkets on election day, revealed earlier this year.
National MP Nick Smith as blamed the Government for taking too long to get the inquiry going in the first place. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The Select Committee process has been fraught, having gone through six different chairs this year and prompted National MP Nick Smith to describe it as a farce.
The committee is split between National and Labour Party members.
It wasn’t started until September, 2018, – a year after the election – and later expanded to also cover foreign interference risks – although intelligence agencies said their security protocols for dealing with foreign and cyber-security threats weren’t necessary in 2017. Two National and two Labour members also left the during the process.
The committee’s first chair, Labour’s Raymond Huo, stood down in April this year after a debate over whether to let China expert and University of Canterbury professor Anne-Marie Brady be heard.
In its response to Tuesday’s report, National said the process had also been turned into a “sham” by Little introducing electoral laws before the recommendations were out, and without consensus with the Opposition.
“I don’t think the Government took the inquiry seriously,” Smith said.
“It’s very disappointing and dismissive of the Minister. There’s many recommendations in there that are important.”
Smith said the Government had taken too long to begin the process.
“It’s peculiar for the Minister to be criticising the delay,” he said.
“They didn’t even start the inquiry until 12 months after the election. The extension of the terms of reference did not occur until late last year and we didn’t even hear submissions on the foreign interference issue until April this year.”
But Labour’s Meka Whaitiri, the committee’s last chair, said while she shared Little’s regret at the delay, she dismissed Smith’s criticism and said “a lot of diplomacy” had been required to get the report over the line.
“If it was just a single, stand-alone inquiry, but it was complicated that it was really three substantive inquiries in one,” she said.
“Put it this way, the fact that it’s a split Select Committee you are going to get robust debate. And that’s exactly what we got.”
Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans * UK-U.S. trade documents were leaked last month * Reddit believes Russian campaign behind the leak * UK fears attempt to influence the Dec. 12 election * British spies investigating the matter By Michael Holden LONDON, Dec 7 (Reuters) – The leak of classified UK-U.S. trade […]
View full post on AmIHackerProof.com
Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans Apple confirmed that their latest iPhone 11 phones come with a feature that requires regular geolocation checks, but the company said that information doesn’t leave the phone. Security researcher Brian Krebs noticed that the latest iPhone 11 was making geolocation check seven when all apps that […]
View full post on AmIHackerProof.com
secretly transferred user data to China without obtaining consent, according to
a lawsuit filed by a college student in the Northern District of California.
Hong claimed the viral video service culled off her personal videos and
information, then funneled it to servers in China.
“Allegations that TikTok has been accumulating data about U.S. consumers – including personally identifiable information – and extracting it back to servers in China are unsurprising,” said Ray Walsh, a digital privacy advocate at ProPrivacy. “Despite TikTok’s previous claims that it was not extracting data back to China – a healthy amount of skepticism existed among privacy advocates surrounding this Chinese company’s data practices.”
Calling Big Data a valuable currency that
the service accumulates, Price maintained that “it always seemed highly
probable that the international branch of TikTok would be sending masses of
data back to its masters in China.”
He noted that the services like TikTok aren’t designed “just to profit from advertising revenue within the platform, but also to gain access to valuable data and insights about consumers.” As with all apps developed overseas, “consumers need to be aware of the risks that their data may be extracted and used in accordance with foreign privacy policies and regulations,” Price said. “This means that any data accumulated from U.S. citizens on those platforms could potentially be used to identify, track and profile them” not only now but well into the future.
“The potential that the app is
surreptitiously collecting user content via TikTok – even when users do not
publish those videos to the platform – is extremely concerning and rings very
serious alarm bells,” said Price. “Users ought not to have to worry about draft
videos being hoovered up by the company because if these allegations turn out
to be true TikTok is potentially accumulating all kinds of insights that
consumers believe they are ultimately deciding not to share.”
Want to read more?
Please login or register first to view this content.
Next post in Privacy & Compliance News and Analysis
Hacking and other cybersecurity skills should be taught in schools in a similar way to sports, said alleged hacker Lauri Love.
The activist, who won a legal battle in 2018 to block his extradition to the US over allegations that he hacked into computer networks including NASA, the Federal Reserve and the US Army, said schools in the UK need to be more sophisticated in the way they teach technical skills to students.
“We need to treat this a bit like we treat sport,” Mr Love said at an event in London run by cybersecurity business Redscan.
Mr Love said that students should be given a “structured, controlled environment” to learn cybersecurity skills in order to stop them engaging in criminal behaviour….
Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans by Joe Panettieri • Nov 22, 2019 Optiv Security has evaluated roughly 40 different cybersecurity companies for potential acquisition or investment in Europe, but declined to ink any M&A deals because the valuations were simply too high, Optiv says. The statement represents a reality check for […]
View full post on AmIHackerProof.com