some

now browsing by tag

 
 

#deepweb | Bernie Sanders says “some wars are necessary”

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

 

Bernie Sanders says “some wars are necessary”

By
Tom Hall

11 January 2020

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.

Bernie Sanders

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.

 


Source link
——————————————————————————————————

The post #deepweb | <p> Bernie Sanders says “some wars are necessary” <p> appeared first on National Cyber Security.

View full post on National Cyber Security

#cybersecurity | #hackerspace | The NYPD (and the rest of us) need some new barricades

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

Not all security barricades are made of wood. Some are made of bits.

According to the New York Post, the New York Police Department ran into some security trouble back in October, when a contractor plugged an infected Intel NUC computer in to the network at the Queens location of the Police Academy as part of work on the school’s digital signage system. The NUC quickly did what infected computers do and reached out and touched 20+ other systems, infecting them with malware.

The interesting part (and lesson for all of us) is that the infected machines were part of the NYPD’s LiveScan fingerprint system, which I think we can all agree would count as a critical system for any law enforcement agency. It appears that the cops reacted quickly, isolating the infection, cleaning the systems and determining that there was no malicious intent on the part of the contractor who caused the mess.

So?

This is a great example of why network segmentation is a good idea and a good security control to consider in your organization.

I can’t think of any reason for the Police Academy’s digital signage network to have the ability to talk to the LiveScan network (or pretty much anything else other than systems holding content and network management tools). Had firewalls or access control lists separated the signage network from the rest of the network, the damage could have been contained to the less critical signage network.

While the NYPD would probably have not have had to buy additional equipment to implement network segmentation, this control is not without a cost. Having a more segmented network does mean that thought has to be given as to what systems need to communicate with each other and adds to the workload of the networking team, who need to open needed ports and routes and keep track of why systems communicate.

However, the security rewards of segmenting networks are significant, making it much more difficult for malware to spread and for attackers to move laterally once they have breached a portion of the network. Hunting for suspicious traffic on segmented networks is also made easier – just look for firewall drops between segments to see if malware or attackers are rooting around. Finally, this kind of setup makes it harder for internal users to set up applications and servers without the knowledge of networking and security personnel.

Making the commitment to network segmentation is a non trivial project and in today’s fast paced business world, processes need to be in place to quickly evaluate and implement needed connectivity. But when an event occurs, a segmented network is much easier to defend, coordinate response on and clean up.

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Al Berg&#039;s Paranoid Prose authored by Al Berg. Read the original post at: https://paranoidprose.blog/2019/11/29/the-nypd-and-the-rest-of-us-need-some-new-barricades/

Source link

The post #cybersecurity | #hackerspace |<p> The NYPD (and the rest of us) need some new barricades <p> appeared first on National Cyber Security.

View full post on National Cyber Security

#cybersecurity | #infosec | Facebook and Twitter warn some users’ private data accessed via SDK

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

Facebook and Twitter have announced that personal data related to hundreds of users may have been improperly accessed after users logged into third-party Android apps with their social media accounts.

According to a report by CNBC, users of Android apps that made use of a software development kit (SDK) named oneAudience may have unwittingly shared information such as their email addresses, usernames and recent tweets.

CNBC says that amongst the offending Android apps are the photo-editing tools Giant Square and Photofy. Presently there is no indication that iOS users are affected by the issue.

According to an advisory published by Twitter, data extracted from accounts via the use of the oneAudience SDK (which it describes as “malicious”) in a smartphone app could be used to take control of a Twitter account, although it has seen no evidence that this has occurred.

Twitter was keen to emphasise that the “issue is not due to a vulnerability in Twitter’s software, but rather the lack of isolation between SDKs within an application,” and says it will be notifying users of the Twitter for Android app who may have been affected.

Furthermore, Twitter says it has “informed Google and Apple about the malicious SDK so they can take further action if needed.” I presume what they mean by that is that so Google and Apple can kick any offending apps out of their respective app stores.

In response, oneAudience has issued a statement claiming the “data was never intended to be collected, never added to [its] database and never used.”

According to the company, it “proactively” updated its SDK in mid-November so user data could not be collected, and asked developer partners to update to the new version. However, it has now announced it is shutting down the offending SDK.

Facebook meanwhile has issued a statement saying that it is taking action against not only the oneAudience SDK, but also an SDK from marketing company MobiBurn:

“Security researchers recently notified us about two bad actors, One Audience and Mobiburn, who were paying developers to use malicious software developer kits (SDKs) in a number of apps available in popular app stores.”

“After investigating, we removed the apps from our platform for violating our platform policies and issued cease and desist letters against One Audience and Mobiburn. We plan to notify people whose information we believe was likely shared after they had granted these apps permission to access their profile information like name, email and gender. We encourage people to be cautious when choosing which third-party apps are granted access to their social media accounts.”

On its website, MobiBurn describes how it helps app developers generate revenue – not by placing more ads within an app, but through the “monetization of your applications’ valuable data in a safe and confidential way.”

However, in light of the revelations and action taken by Facebook and Twitter, MobiBurn says it has “stopped all its activities” until investigations are complete.

mobiburn statement

This is all very well and good, but what are users supposed to do to protect themselves?

When they install an app, they have no way of knowing whether the developers chose to make use of a malicious SDK which might leave personal information exposed.

All you can realistically do is exercise restraint regarding which third-party apps you connect to your social media profiles. The fewer apps you connect to your Facebook and Twitter, the smaller the chance that someone’s code will be abusing that connection to access information you would rather not share.


Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this guest author article are solely those of the contributor, and do not necessarily reflect those of Tripwire, Inc.

Source link

The post #cybersecurity | #infosec | Facebook and Twitter warn some users’ private data accessed via SDK appeared first on National Cyber Security.

View full post on National Cyber Security

Facebook #secretly deleted #some of Mark Zuckerberg’s private #messages over fears the #company could be #hacked

Want to delete that embarrassing message you just sent? WhatsApp will let you, and so will Instagram — but if you’re using Facebook, then you’re out of luck.

Unless you’re Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and cofounder of Facebook.

TechCrunch reported Thursday that some old messages sent by Zuckerberg and senior executives have disappeared from recipients’ Facebook Messenger inboxes, proven by the original email receipts sent at the time.

The company appeared to confirm the unique arrangement, telling TechCrunch the change was made in response to an uptick in hacking.

“After Sony Pictures’ emails were hacked in 2014 we made a number of changes to protect our executives’ communications. These included limiting the retention period for Mark’s messages in Messenger. We did so in full compliance with our legal obligations to preserve messages,” the company said.

The Sony hack targeted the emails of Sony film executives, which revealed a side of Hollywood rarely seen by outsiders, and the decision to name the event as a catalyst for Facebook’s message purge indicates how troubling the incident was in Silicon Valley — and that Facebook was concerned about being hacked.

The company also raised the idea of a “retention period,” though there is no such thing for normal users. If a user long presses a private message on Facebook a “Delete Message” pop up confirms that the function will “delete your copy of the message,” and the recipients’ copy will remain.

Facebook-owned Instagram has long had the option to “unsend” direct messages, while Facebook-owned WhatsApp recently launched a deletion function where unread messages can be deleted “for everyone.” A message is then displayed to all participants that content has been deleted.

But Zuckerberg’s deleted messages didn’t leave behind any such message, probably because they had already been read, many years ago.

The messages were originally sent to former employees and people outside of Facebook. According to TechCrunch, the recipients of the now-deleted messages were not informed at any stage that correspondence they received had been erased.

Zuckerberg may be the CEO of Facebook, but it’s unclear how the decision to remove senior executives’ messages would be allowed under the company’s terms of service. The terms only allow Facebook to remove content if the company believes “that it violates this Statement or our policies” or for infringing copyright.

Deleting messages quietly, and selectively, also appears to fly in the face of Facebook’s campaign to “make the world more open and transparent.” Its own policies say that the company “should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations.”

Facebook appears to have not followed these policies in this instance, and it raises questions about the recipient’s right to privacy.

The news comes just weeks after the Cambridge Analytica scandal which has seen Zuckerberg admit that tens of millions of users probably had their data scraped.

advertisement:

The post Facebook #secretly deleted #some of Mark Zuckerberg’s private #messages over fears the #company could be #hacked appeared first on National Cyber Security Ventures.

View full post on National Cyber Security Ventures

WannaCry Some More? Cybercriminals Using NSA Hacking Tools to Attack Citizens

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

A cybersecurity firm has announced hacking tools linked to the US National Security Agency are being exploited by cybercriminals. NSA-linked hacking tools are being used by cybercriminals in efforts to remotely steal money and confidential information from online banking users, according to researchconducted by cybersecurity firm Proofpoint. Proofpoint researchers discovered two different banking trojans in the wild, with computer…

The post WannaCry Some More? Cybercriminals Using NSA Hacking Tools to Attack Citizens appeared first on National Cyber Security Ventures.

View full post on National Cyber Security Ventures

Fiat Must Face Some Claims In Drivers’ Hacking Risk Suit

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

An Illinois federal judge on Monday refused to entirely dismiss a putative class action claiming some Fiat Chrysler Jeeps are susceptible to hacking, saying that the plaintiffs can continue to claim they overpaid for the vehicles. District Court Judge Michael Reagan dismissed remaining claims that possible future car hacking could…

The post Fiat Must Face Some Claims In Drivers’ Hacking Risk Suit appeared first on National Cyber Security Ventures.

View full post on National Cyber Security Ventures

Hackers could take over your computer if they fragged you on some CS:GO servers

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

An exploit in the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Source (SDK) engine was removed in a June update, according a report from software security company One Up Security yesterday. The vulnerability allowed users in CS:GO community browser and third-party servers to hack into another player’s computer merely through killing them on a…

The post Hackers could take over your computer if they fragged you on some CS:GO servers appeared first on National Cyber Security Ventures.

View full post on National Cyber Security Ventures

Dark Web Hosting Service Hacked, Some Data Was Stolen

To Purchase This Product/Services, Go To The Store Link Above Or Go To http://www.become007.com/store/ Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans Deep Hosting — a Dark Web hosting service — admitted yesterday to suffering a major security incident during which “some sites have …

The post Dark Web Hosting Service Hacked, Some Data Was Stolen appeared first on Become007.com.

View full post on Become007.com

Computer expert: Some voting machines can be directly hacked

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

Computer expert: Some voting machines can be directly hacked

A computer science professor told the Senate Intelligence Committee Wednesday that voting machines that create an electronic record of the voters’ decisions are open to fraud and computer hacking, vulnerabilities that are big enough to potentially change the outcome of some elections. J. Alex Halderman, professor of computer science at…

The post Computer expert: Some voting machines can be directly hacked appeared first on National Cyber Security Ventures.

View full post on National Cyber Security Ventures

Some question government’s responsibility in cyber security after latest breach

Source: National Cyber Security – Produced By Gregory Evans

This week’s news about the CIA having the ability to access cell phones didn’t come as a surprise to some. However, there are also those that are concerned about whether or not withholding that information from tech companies is safe …

The post Some question government’s responsibility in cyber security after latest breach appeared first on National Cyber Security Ventures.

View full post on National Cyber Security Ventures