Tag Archives: Julian Assange

January 5, 2015 · 10:32

Authentically Realistic

Whilst we see many sources talk about the need of blaming North Korea, we see an abundance of changes that are now not just changing the way we think, but these changes will also change the way we live and act. As we are soon to be lulled into more false sense of security, we must now content with the thought, what is real and what is not.

In IT these issues have existed on several layers for a long time, yet the overall lack of Common Cyber Sense has been absent for a massive amount of time. Bradley Edward Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning is only one of several parts of this puzzle. Wikileaks has added its own levels of damage and let us not forget the acts of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. This is not on how things were done; it is about a lack of proper measures and controls. In the age of people screaming that they have a right to know, they will publish whatever they can for the need of ego and then scream on how the government is abusing their right to privacy.

These are all elements that link back to ‘Common Cyber Sense’.

CCS as I call it has in its foundations a few branches. The first is proper use and knowledge. Many still laugh and sneer at manuals and proper use of equipment, yet when other people started to ‘look’ through their webcams on laptops into their privacy, smiles disappeared quickly. We live in an age where everything is set around the fake image of comfort, it is fake because comfort at the expense of security is never comfort, it is just an added level of danger into your own life. At this point people forget that what is set into software, can usually be switched on and off at the leisure of a skilled ‘someone else’.

Buying what is cheap and what is right are worlds apart, that part is more and more a given fact. The bulk of people are lulled into ignoration when it comes to a simple easy tool that can be used everywhere, at which time they forget to ask ‘by everyone?’. Consider the HP laptop (one of many brands) has a build in webcam at the top of the screen, instead of relying on a software switch, these makers could have added a little slide that covers the lens, literally a low-tech solution making the lens see nothing, as far as I can tell, no one took that precaution for the safety and security of the consumer, is that not nice?

The second branch is access. If I got $.50 for every person that uses their name, ‘qwerty’ or ‘password’ or even ‘abc123’ for their login, I could buy a small Island like Hawaii or New Zealand, probably even both. Even though many websites and systems demand stronger passwords, there is always that bright person who uses the same password for every site. This is part of a larger problem, but let’s move on for now.

Third is the connection branch, places where we can ALWAYS connect! You think that not having passwords on your home Wi-Fi makes you safe? Wrong! You could add loads of problems on every device that connects to it by not properly setting things up. I wonder if those with an automotive router have considered the dangers of not setting it up properly and letting all the people they pass access to whatever is connected to it in the car.

The fourth branch is for the unknown. This might seem like a weird option, but consider how fast movable technology is growing, I am using ‘movable’ and not mobile, because this changing field includes phones, laptops, PDA’s, tablets and other not yet defined devices (like the apple watch, handheld game systems and consoles).

At the centre of all this is proper usage, but not just your hardware, it also includes your software, a fact many have remained oblivious to.

At this point, I will take a temporary sidestep and let you consider the following term ‘non-repudiation’.

Non-repudiation is about identity and authentication. Basically it states, ‘you and you alone‘ have sent this item (message, photo, financial transfer). In legal reasoning this will be the strong shift that will most likely hit many people in 2016 and onwards, it could hit you this year, but there are more than just a few issues with this situation for the immediate now. So when you lose your money and you state you were hacked, then you might soon have to prove it, which means that any evidence that you EVER gave your password or pin-code to a spouse, lover, boy/girl friend or sibling means that you nullified your rights. You get to pay for the consequences of THEIR acts at that point.

So when we see biometrics, we think fingerprint, we expect to be a lot safer. WRONG! Only last month did a group in Germany show how they recreated the finger print of the German Defence minister from simple digital photos, which means that this could have given them access to a whole collection of items, events and information they should not have gotten access to. So what to do? Well, that market is growing really fast. ‘Vein’ is the latest. It does not rely on fingerprint, but on the veins in a finger or hand, it is just as unique as a fingerprint, it is a 3d issue, making it even more secure and it requires an actual living hand. It also will lack the dangers of influence that a retinal scan has when a woman gets pregnant, or in case of a diabetes patient or alcohol levels. These all can shift retinal scans, with the added problem that this person stays outside the lock, becoming the valid person ‘no-more’. Yet, ‘Vein’ is still a new technology and not currently (or in the near future) available for movable devices, which gives us the issue on what devices are actually decently secure.

Let’s not forget, that even though this is not an immediate issue, the people will need to change their possible ‘lacking’ approach with more than just slow muffled interest, whilst they rely on the comfort of not having to comprehend the technology. That part is still not completely disregarded in several cases, the issue at Sony being likely the most visible one for some time to come. There is still a massive amount of actual intelligence missing. Most speculate, including me (yet I have been looking at these speculators and claimers of facts). Whilst Sony is visible, there are still unanswered issues regarding the NSA and how a place like that had the implied intrusion Edward Snowden claimed to have made.

Now let us take a step back to the four branches. I showed the webcam issue in the first branch, but the lack of consideration by the user is often a bigger problem. You see, many ‘lock’ their device, or just walk away and switch their screen off. Their computer remains connected and remains accessible to whoever is looking for a place to hack. I know that waiting 45 seconds is a bother at times, but learn to shut down your computer. A system that is switched off cannot get hacked, the same applies to your router (which actually has the added benefit of letting your adapter cool down, making the device last longer) and your overall electricity bill goes down too, all these benefits, all neglected for the fake comfort of accessing your social media the second you come home. Yet proper usage also includes software upgrades. Many do them, but more often than not, they tend to be made when the system reboots, when this is not done (or the software upgrades are not made) your system becomes increasingly at risk for intrusions of all kinds. Windows 7, which is a lot better than either Vista or Windows 8, still required 84 patches in 2014. With over half a dozen being either critical or important, you see why even in the best of times, under all conditions met, you still run some risk. And this is just Windows; in 2013 they had to fix 47 vulnerabilities regarding Outlook, explorer and the Windows kernel. There was a massive issue with remote execution, which means that your system was open to the outside without the need for a login (source: PCWorld). Now, to their defence, Windows and office are massive programs, but still, it seems that Microsoft (not just them) have taken a strong stride towards ‘comfort’ whilst ignoring ‘safety’ (to some extent).

Branch two is usually the biggest flaw. Even though many websites will require a decent level of strength (usage of small and capital letters, numbers and a special character), but that list is still way too small. The amount of people that I have met that use the lamest of simple words (like ‘abc123’) and these people cry the loudest when their money is gone. You see, it is easier to just hack your computer or device and use that system to order online via other means then it is to hack into your bank account. Yes, it is a bother (at times) to remember every password, yet in that regard you could be clever about it too. There is nothing stopping you from creating variations on a password whilst making sure it is a completely different one. I learned that someone had used her dictionary app to use a version of word of the day, she changed ‘adscititious’ into something like ‘Adsc1t!tious’. Good luck figuring that one out! (I had to look up the word in all honesty), the options become even more interesting if you speak additional languages. So, branch two is something that you the user largely control.

Branch three is actually the growing danger. It is not just when we connect, but when things connect automatically that becomes an issue (and where from). Insurance companies are more and more about your visibility, even though no official moves have been made, the day that junior uploads that catch of the day to his Facebook with dad in the background. That is the option for the members from the ‘institute of discrete entry and removal operations’ to help you with your old stuff (the missing items when you get home). The information you ‘give’ when you connect (especially on free Wi-Fi places), you see, when you connect to free Wi-Fi, more than one danger exists that others can connect to you, yes, you could learn that free Wi-Fi was the most expensive part of your vacation soon thereafter. It however moves more and more to your area of usage. As we get more connections and as we can connect from more places (like the automotive router), we will receive additional responsibilities in setting devices up properly for our safety and the safety of our children.

Now, to take a second sidestep. This is not about scaring you (a nice benefit for sure), some of these things can be prevented from point zero. Knowing what you switch off, switching off when not used are first easy and elemental steps. You see, a hacker looks for a place to get into, when your computer and router are switched off, the hacker will not spot these devices at all and move on. Hackers do not like to waste time, so when you use proper passwords, that same hacker will lose a lot of time getting access to your devices, time he could be having ‘fun’, so these two elements are already diminishing the chance of you getting transgressed upon. But in the end, there is another side. Makers of hardware and software need to become increasingly aware that their ‘toys’ have malicious usage. It was Geek.com that had the article ‘Yes, Xbox One Kinect can see you through your clothes‘ (at http://www.geek.com/games/yes-xbox-one-kinect-can-see-you-through-your-clothes-1576752/), which gives an interesting demo (without showing off anything indecent) how defined and articulate the scan system worked and it is a hackable solution, even there we see the mention that a lens cover would not have been a bad idea.

Yet we have digressed away from the heart of the matter. All these are linked, but the crown in the hardware is an increasing need for non-repudiation, showing that you and only you acted. A lack of this evidence could also go a long way in proving that you were innocent and that you were the victim. It is easy to claim that the makers are at fault and to some degree they are, but there is a growing need to have the right solution, and so far having any clean solution remains absent, whomever comes up with that could own the cornerstone of the global technology sector, an area that represents a massive amount of long term revenue.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

December 30, 2014 · 14:42

Fur ball?

OK, I thought I was done for the year, you know, the last article when I threw a little lob ball in a less serious approach to reporting events. However, that part threw me a little fur ball, almost like coughing up the Cheshire cat.

It all started with the Jerusalem Post today, at least that is when I noticed the message. The title states: ‘Israel expects world community to oppose Palestinian efforts at UN, Netanyahu says‘ (at http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-expects-world-community-to-oppose-Palestinian-efforts-at-UN-Netanyahu-says-386058), true, there are issues with the entire UN debacle to some extent; my emphasis is regarding the use of ‘some’. You see, as much as I oppose the entire anti-Semitic approach towards Israel. Having a strong anti-Palestinian view seems equally wrong; however, Palestine has created this issue whilst condoning whatever Hamas did to the largest extent, which is completely unacceptable either, none of those actions make sense. The quote “Israel will oppose conditions that will endanger our future” is very much central into this. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very correct in that statement. Hamas has always and remains ‘dedicated’ to wiping out Israel, which beckon the thought why the EEC courts would rule against giving Hamas the ‘terrorist’ label. We could argue and speculate on how this is even acceptable. Did this grow out of fear on the Islamic state presence in both Gaza and Sinai? The fact that they are growing in Libya and even in other parts of North Africa is a nightmare scenario coming true (at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/islamic-state-opening-front-in-north-africa/). There have been unconfirmed reports of Islamic State in Algeria, but if so, if they could start getting any level of hold in Morocco, then they are just a footstep away from Spain. That should scare the EEC plenty, they have no funds left to manage any event, and giving up Israel means that they get a little time to ‘clean up’ their border issues. This would be a step that is delusional in many ways. You see, Israel remains essential to balance in the Middle East. The Economic Judges took little notice of that part of the equation; just on the formality of what a terrorist is, (apparently blowing up Sbarro filled with civilians is not a terrorist act). By the way, did anyone notice how there dos not seem to be any paper explaining the formality in that legality? Just the fact that is was ‘a formality’.

The second quote is the one that seems to be a little debatable: “Netanyahu said that Israel and western civilization were under attack from Iran and Islamic radicals, and that this attack also included Palestinian efforts to impose a solution that would endanger Israel’s security and place its future in danger“, one part should be (as I see it): “under attack from extreme supporters within the Iranian government and Islamic radicals“, which would be more correct. I do not believe all Iranian (at present) are like that, yet open support from Iran towards Hamas has been seen, these military elements seem to get some political protection, which proves my point (to some extent), yet I am not certain (or there is at least a decent level of doubt) that it does not blanket all political Iran as I see it. The fact that President Obama announced the possibility of an American Embassy in Tehran is not a bad thing, but these developments should be closely watched, because there is an issue. It is not the fact that this meeting was with Indiana Governor Mike Pence. The act that he is a Republican and that this meeting was absent of Democratic heavy weights might be fuel for speculation were the current Democratic administration stands. Especially as the White house was unwilling to confirm or deny it stance towards Israel. This has all the makings of a political issue that should be a moral one. Israel remains under siege from rockets on a nearly daily basis, it seems that people forget how the US reacted when there was some demolition going on in New York close to the corner of West Street and Liberty street. Let us not forget that this was ONE event. Israel has remained under attack for decades. Israel now has two generations under attack from rocket fire. These events cannot be compared, but perhaps the Americans can remember their anger on September 12th, which is the feeling Israel has had for a long time. It wants to survive plain and simple. It’s neighbour will continue to attack Israel, whilst Israel wants to survive, yet, in fairness, I must look towards the other side too. I believe there can be a Palestine WITHOUT Hamas. That is an option, but Hamas does not want it, it wants to lead and to do that, it must remove Israel. It is not a puzzle, it is a simple equation, one denies the existence of the other solution, so I must side with Israel and as such, as long as there is Hamas, there can be no Palestine. A situation now worsened with the existence of Islamic state in that area.

There is another view that I must bring forth. I am not sure if I can agree with it as there are a few parts that touch on items I never looked at (it is not a small document at http://www.academia.edu/5145129/Gunning_-_The_Conflict_and_the_Question_of_Engaging_with_Hamas_in_EUISS_CP124_European_Involvement_in_the_Arab-Israeli_Conflict), but it has views that are not invalid. As such, I call to attention to the following part “They could, for example, spell out the rewards that would be forthcoming for a new unity government that would share responsibility for delivering basic services and the rule of law in both the West Bank and Gaza“, this is found on page 41. I am not stating that this is happening, but when we consider the events, it is not that far a stretch to see that this might be part of a path that the EEC is currently treading. If so, they will soon see the other side of a terrorist organisation. It remains nice and talkative as long as steps in their direction are made; when that stops when THEY need to show progress there will be delays, miss-communication and other events. Then those big business judges will see innuendo towards ‘give us the rest or else‘, then what? When THEIR ego is in play, what will they decide then? Let us not forget that they are gambling with the existence of the state of Israel. When they are told, there are 10 solutions to this and ‘no’ is not an option, whilst they contemplate what the other 8 options are, when they suddenly realise it was a binary question with a ‘no’ and a ‘yes’, the other 8 solutions never existed in the first place, then what? They might not have pulled the trigger, but they are skating towards the end of Israel for the simple comfort of mind that never existed. You see, terrorists are extremists, they only cater to the view of ‘self’, with no regard of any other view. Israel is trying to survive, plain and simple, a war that continued from 1945 onwards.

Yet, there was also a spark of visibility (in other areas), that gave me pause to consider other dimensions. Not in regarding to what goes boom, but in another direction. In the same way that we look at the EEC decision of Hamas, there is a Jewish issue that the Jerusalem post shows, which gives us another part of this cloak. It is seen at http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Rabbi-Meir-Mazuz-responds-to-Rabbi-Cohens-attack-on-Yishai-385989. As we see a needed separation of politics and Law, we see an equal need to separate state from church (as many have always seen it in the US and other places). The quotes were “Rabbi Shalom Cohen, he should be well, is a great Torah scholar, a righteous man and a great intellectual, but he does not come down to the people and, therefore, he does not understand the common people”, “He has never held public office and served most of his career as a rabbi in yeshiva and a yeshiva dean, not as a halachic arbiter dealing with the questions of Jewish law that are brought to senior rabbis for a ruling” and “Mazuz seemingly referenced one of Cohen’s recent outbursts in which he said during a prayer service at the Western Wall for the welfare of IDF soldiers during Operation Protective Edge that Israel did not need an army because “It is God almighty who fights for Israel.”“. Now I am not debating the issues as they are, I feel not qualified to do so, but there are issues as they have always been in almost any religion. I would not elect a Rabbi to political office, for the same reasons I would not vote for the election of a Catholic in that same category, each having a slight radical, absolute view. A woman’s ‘right to choose’ abortion would end pretty much immediately, also, there would be a diminished view for defence and an increase or humanitarian needs and diplomacy. Yet, Diplomacy without military power could be regarded as either pointless, or useless. Diplomacy requires a stick to fight with when ‘the’ word is ignored. It is counterproductive when we know that the stick remains ignored and the diplomatic view is ignored completely when we know that there is no stick in the first place. This is the damage that Julian Assange created, which too many ignored. The anti-American league had a field day when they saw WHERE the US had made commitments, knowing where the stick was, toppled many American diplomatic endeavour, whilst they remained in the dark where the other sticks were. That view is only emphasised when we see the Jewish elections. How can the people be served without their military need for defence? Is that not counter to the Torah? If we know that the IDF abides by what is seen as “The Torah establishes the boundaries of what is permitted and forbidden in war for both individual and for society“, which gives us how Hamas waged war, yet the ‘legalised’ view of the EEC disregarded that overall view and reacted to, what I regard to be an economic view of judgement, which gives us the escalating issues. The added incentive here is that no one has actually give any visibility on how the ruling was made, on what legal premise is was founded, is this not strange too?

So, as we consider on who makes rulings on how judiciary choices are made, we must consider that the players have their own agenda. Whether we should consider how the law is seen (by some) and when we see how economies ad terrorists make decisions, in a morally biased way how, is any of it regarded as legal? Is there a boundary between those who fell from a rocket and those who fell through economic ‘treason’? How does that reflect differently on the victim? There is a famous quote we see Lee Marvin make in the movie ‘The Big red one’ (one of my five all-time war movies). There he states “We don’t murder; we kill“, I am certain that it did not matter to the one whose live we end, only to our own morality to pull the trigger. A morality a terrorist or a stockbroker for that matter does not seem to have.

You see, the sniper kills (or murders) for the protection of others, the terrorist and stockbroker acts for the wealth (or survival) of self at the expense of (all) others, elements of the same sides of two different coins.

So as the fur ball coughs up a Cheshire Cat, we must worry for the future, we all seem to disregard certain values and adhere to choices of our own survival, even if that requires us to realign our morality, just the slightest. As Saruman the White becomes Saruman of many colours, we see the fading of white, the finding of what was actually right and we lose ourselves into a world where we remove the fences that were there to protect us all. What happens next? I do not know, or even pretend to know, but I do worry, because 2015 is likely to be a year of turmoil, a year where we had to focus on a better economy, a side that might be pushed aside for whatever escalation comes next.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 19, 2013 · 05:12

Buying cheap intelligence goods

Well, another week, another story about the world’s favourite traitor Mr Edward Snowden. The latest information as shown by Sky news is that he offers Brazil to defeat US spying, but it starts with a permanent political asylum. So, Brazil would end up spending way too much on a person who is likely not fluent in any way in the Portuguese ways.

So, after he ‘walks away’ from China and as Russia seems to be a non-option, Brazil now gets a shot at buying that diamond in the rough for only $2.99. Is no one picking up on this?

My advice to the Brazil government is that if you want to secure your systems in a proper way, get someone with a decent University degree with additional papers and knowledge of Cisco systems. Both will allow for the implementation of Common Cyber Sense. Now, this might not stop US spying, but it will make it a lot harder for them. In the end, if a Brazilian official opens a mail with a ‘personalised’ letter from some sexy ‘Miss X’, hoping for a dinner date, then the worm that opens their security would already be installed again. So, your system might not remain that secure for long. Still, getting the proper professionals will help.

I just do not get it, a person that is regarded as ‘non-valuable’ in both China and Russia, is now hoping for some future in Brazil? I reckon that Brazil might not want these complications in any way or form. Do you think that IF Snowden was such an asset that there was not some ‘loophole’ in place where he would have been able to spend a permanent comfortable time in either Russia or China? America had been playing that game for decades (even for non-intelligence and zero economic value holding trained ballerinas). I see it in a more simple way. Snowden walked away with a treasure chest, there are plenty of issues on the validity of the bulk of what he had, but now that he is on the outside, that one chest will have to last him a life time. The strongest issue that seems to be ignored by EVERYONE in the press is on how the NSA failed to the extent that he was able to walk away with this amount of data, more important, who is he selling it to?

I am not talking about governments and their intelligence groups, but the commercial branch of many corporations who might want to take a deep look at all this data.

So here we are reading another iteration of the Snowden joke and at present the press seems to ignore many of the most common sides that we should worry about. Some might have read the statement that General Alexander gave. Funny enough, the issues he stated and the acts he described were close to identical to the issues that I mentioned no less than 5 months ago. Many of them were the paces that any IT professional would have seen. No, it is just so much sexier to just take over the issues the Guardian took to heart. I am not stating that what they wrote were not based upon ‘facts’, but the source is already proving to be extremely unreliable and even less bothered by the integrity he proclaimed to have. Also, when people compare him to Julian Assange, then consider that I still have my doubts about Assange, but at least he always remained on his horse of idealism, not one I truly support, but I get to some extent the windmill he believes that he had been fighting. It makes the two worlds apart and in case of Snowden in a very negative way.

So back to Snowden, what to do about him?

Although I am all for the ‘drastical’ solution we reserve for certain types, it is important to get him into the US (alive) and into the interrogation room. You see, he got a boatload of data out of a building that should not have allowed the opportunity for this to happen. Even though the American alphabet groups have their own issues as they used private contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton, certain security matters are now at the forefront of whatever they will try to do next. This is not an accusation against BAH, I am convinced that the bulk of these people are devoted nationalists and American patriots. I reckon 99.1% would never consider doing what Snowden did, this makes for a case that there are a few still walking around contemplating what Snowden did. We need to learn what weaknesses the NSA had. Not because we truly care that much (Americans definitely might), but if it happens there where they have an overwhelming budget of many billions, what issues can we expect to find when a light is brought on both the DSD and GCHQ? Let’s not forget that they get a combined budget less than 1% of what the NSA has at its disposal. I feel that direct treason is not likely to happen, but overall, there is the danger of intrusions and even the danger of data heists to some degree. It is that degree that will bear scrutiny. So the open question ‘How easy is it to get data out of the agency?’ is a question that needs to be addressed by several governmental parties.

So back to this Snowden fellow, when we see the LA Times (at http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-metadata-snowden-20131218,0,4977259.column#axzz2nqe1wbKe) we see other parts of this discussion. There are two quotes in this piece “Congress is debating several proposals to rein in the program, including a bill that would effectively end it.” This is of course a valid option, for one, the US is still a nation governed by laws, and Congress can put in place a policy to change it. Let us not forget now that the bad guys know (thanks to the Guardian amongst others) what is being done; only the stupid terrorists will get caught and they would have gotten caught anyway. The second one is a little harder to discuss “I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion of citizens’ rights”, District Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in a blistering opinion. “The author of our Constitution, James Madison would be aghast.” I feel uncertain to agree with his honour Justice Leon. In the end citizens’ rights were never in danger, we could state that only terrorists were in danger, all were collected to see whether they were a terrorist or not. It could have been stated that if Senator McCarthy had access to these systems, would innocent people ever have been targeted? That is at the centre of this. There people SUSPECTED of communism were destroyed, here they are trying to find the real terrorists. In the end the McCarthy issue went a lot deeper, but at the core we have this notion, is it un-American to object to these methods (if you are an American)? There was never a case for innocent people. There is even the notion that criminals, drug dealers and others could never be gotten at through this way, it is a method to find the hidden dangers of terrorism. In addition, his honour should not forget that it was the legal branch that enacted the Patriot Act the way it was. It was for the most, the legal branch that ‘wallowed’ in ambiguity, which allowed for most of these far fetching ‘freedoms’.

It gets a lot more fun if we consider the article the Guardian published a month ago (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/nsa-keith-alexander-blames-diplomats-surveillance-foreign-leaders)

So as General Alexander answered: “the NSA collected information when it was asked by policy officials to discover the ‘leadership intentions’ of foreign countries. If you want to know leadership intentions, these are the issues,” the NSA director said. So basically, the NSA responded to questions by the policy makers. (perhaps the same policymakers who are now proposing a bill to end all this?)

So, who exactly is this pot which is calling the kettle monitored?

It is the Australian that gives us the final part (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-nsa-spy-agency-is-split-on-snowden-leaks-deal/story-e6frg6so-1226783316594), which discussed a few parts last Monday. The issue of making any kind of a deal with Snowden should not be considered. “General Alexander said an amnesty deal would set a dangerous precedent for any future leakers.” The other quote, which came from Rick Ledgett who stated “Mr Snowden would have to provide firm assurances that the remaining documents would be secured“. This is an assurance that has no holding whatsoever. After the Chinese and the Russians were done with him as well as the Guardian, any ‘security’ to these documents is nothing more than a hollow promise. I personally find it disgusting that treason to this degree could end up being non-prosecuted in any way, shape or form. It is more than a dangerous precedent. It is an almost assured way for fake ideologists to take a roll at the casino for a few million and an optional new passport. It is a dangerous game that will hold long term consequences for all involved.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 22, 2013 · 22:28

Patrons of Al-Qaeda

Many people have some form of religion, which is fine. To have a personal believe in something that is bigger than yourself or bigger then that what you see is not a bad thing. Many Christians have their father, their son and their holy ghost. Some go the other way and give credence to Satan, the anti-Christ and the false prophet. I cannot vouch for any of that. I agree that there is more than this in the universe, but what?

No matter how that part falls, it is likely that Al-Qaeda believes in their personal ‘information’ trinity.

They would be Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. These three people have done more to support Al-Qaeda then Osama Bin Laden ever could.

Assange, who is still hiding in an embassy, is the lowest transgressor of the three. First of all, as an Australian he did not really break any laws (although some debate should be had over hindering the actions of an ally under war time conditions). The public view is that on one side he should be nailed to a cross and on the other side he should be heralded. Information is often a lot more complex than many consider. If you want an example, you only need to look at this week’s situation where Assad is now blocking peace talks. Should there be any surprise?

I still am not completely convinced he was directly involved with the Sarin attacks; the issue here is that too much intelligence is questionable. If the USA had shown ALL OF IT publicly, the doubt might not have been there. Yet, the reality is whether they actually had hard evidence on who did it. Let us not forget that the evidence collected in the investigation was all about whether it had happened, not who did it. And guess what, Al-Qaeda was an element in Syria too, so what exactly did happen? Watching Secretary of State John Kerry go on a plane with his briefcase, shown on the news like he is some kind of rock star is not helping anyone either. It seemed as empty to me as a PowerPoint on some concept that no one wants to spend money on.

It shows two possible sides, either they have actual evidence that needs to remain a secret (which no one seemed to be accepting), or they actually didn’t have any and we were watching some version of the Punch and Judy show!

The other side is one that Assange was not into, the acts of terrorism by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not shown, we saw through WikiLeaks just one side of it and it changed the overall balance.

Then WikiLeaks released thousands of diplomatic cables, which I consider to be an act of utter stupidity, the information was one-sided, so the US opposition (all of them) get several free punches into play and as such, US recovery is still being hindered. This is the ‘bad’ side of Julian Assange. Their one sided act destabilised many events. Yes, there is a case to be made, but by not exposing the other side, we get a one-sided situation. In the end, the damage is done and even as there might not be any criminal activity by Julian Assange, we should ask questions.

In case the reader thinks that ‘actions’ against Julian Assange should be made, then consider that many in the financial industry did nothing ‘criminals’ either, even though thousands became homeless because of their ‘non-criminal’ actions.

By the way, remember the quote by CNBC (and many others), somewhere in 2010: “WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange told Andy Greenberg at Forbes that he was in possession of a trove of documents that ‘could take down a bank or two.’ The documents wouldn’t necessarily show illegality but they would reveal an ‘ecosystem of corruption’ at one of the biggest banks in the United States. WikiLeaks would release it ‘early next year.’”

They never came! So was this about intelligence, or about positioning banks in an even stronger place? Is it not interesting that Al-Qaeda’s patron number three and number one patron are all about neutering governments, whilst the banks stay out of play? Is it such a far fetching thought that these two idealists get played by those who believe greed is all?

In the middle we see Bradley Manning. This is not some ‘foreigner’; this was a member of the US military. In my view, he is a traitor plain and simple. A private, without any in depth education thought he had it all figured out, decides on US military policy. Which is interesting as many military members above the rank of Colonel are still trying to figure out what the best course of action is, even those with Ivy League degrees. The only positive thing from all this is that the military needs to seriously start to address its mental health issues, but beyond that small sparkle of recognition, this person was more than a small danger.

That part is not addressed even as the news still discusses the winner of this unholy threesome. Three days ago USA today published information on the fact that anti-leak software had still not been installed. I think it is even worse than many think it is. Some of these applications have (as any good application would) powerful log files. Even when we look at non-military solutions we see the following:

“The client’s log file is located at <user_directory>/Palantir/<version>/logs/client.log”

We can see at Palantir’s wiki what it logs, and depending on the settings it can give a lot (at https://wiki.palantir.com/pgkb/does-the-palantir-product-do-any-logging.html)

By the way, one needed only to change three settings to really log a lot:

# log4j.logger.com.palantir.services=error # package level
# log4j.logger.com.palantir.serveres.Nexus=warn # class level
# log4j.logger.MyLabeledLogger=info # specific logger

Removing ‘# ‘ on each line was all it would take.

This one warning gives a final view “Note that we do NOT recommend enabling logging below the warn level for production scenarios.” which means that all logging is possible mapping out the active military network in real time as the user muddles along.

This is not about Palantir, or even anti-Palantir. It is a software solution that part of the Intelligence community is currently using. IBM Modeler and SAS Miner are both data mining tools with similar abilities (and there are more). They all have these options as it is needed to make their products go smoothly. So when Bradley Manning gave it all away, he really gave it all away! The consequence might have (or could be resulting) in deep targeted attacks against a military server system. The question becomes how good is the anti-leak software? As many logging is set at higher levels (read administrator), many of them would be able to log events unhindered by many prying eyes (it is not realistic to monitor all logs on even 1 server). Even if it is all covered, who else has access to just read these log files? It is not uncommon to negate log files, as their users are usually vetted for use of the application. LOG files can however show more than many bargain for.

Unless the server architecture has been re-arranged, there is plenty of worry whether these servers are safe at this time, because log files are inherently their and needed, they are not linked to a password change and often, they do not get reconfigured away from their standard configuration as the case has been with plenty of application that it would hinder smooth operations.

Last on the list of the Patron Threesome is Edward Snowden. I have mentioned him often enough, so I will not go through it all again. He is in my view a traitor and not some ‘holier than thou’ protector. He is not some idealist, too much pointed to him making a getaway with the eye on some quick bucks (and many of them), I might be wrong, but that is how I see him. As he showed us how ‘naughty’ the NSA was, did he show us how unscrupulous Microsoft seems to be?

That view can be seen through an article in Techbeat just 4 days ago. The first quote is “Microsoft is developing a new technology to replace cookies. This work is similar to projects being undertaken by Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Tracking cookies have come under scrutiny recently from regulators by many concerned about privacy; certain types of cookies (Third party tracking cookies) are now easily blocked through built-in functions and extensions/add-ons within main web browsers.”

The second one from the same article is “This technology should also include Microsoft services including their search engine Bing. Tracking in mobile devices remains a key point. The big advantage of Microsoft’s emerging technology is that it could track a user across a platform.”

So basically, this reads like: ‘we the consumer used to have a little privacy, but soon, thanks to Microsoft, that privacy might be gone forever, allowing for non-stop online harassment wherever we are‘ So, That Snowden fellow never gave us anything on that, did he? Even though the NSA should have been aware of such plans long before Techbeat had a clue. Does the reader still think he is such an idealist?

Yet, on the other side, he has shown one important weakness. The US intelligence branch is on that same low level as the organisation that in the 50’s used to be laughingly referred to as ‘British Intelligence’. The question is not just how weak is the NSA seems to be; it links to questions regarding the weakness that GCHQ and its current Commonwealth peers might have. There are in addition issues with the personal digital safety of people on a global scale. Not because the NSA is scanning to identify terrorist networks, but if one person (Snowden) could get away, is there anyone else who just wanted money and gave their data download to cyber criminals? There is absolute 0% guarantee that this did not happen, so in how much danger are our details?

So, why this blog today? Many do this at the start, but in certain light this had to be done at the very end. It is not just about their acts, but also about the acts you and I undertake. We willingly give out our details to Facebook (including a beheading, but excluding exposed breasts), LinkedIn and Google+, yet many scream about ‘some government‘ seeing what we are doing and who we are doing it with (or without).

The twisted world we allowed to be created is likely to throw us at least two more curve balls before Christmas. Enjoy!

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 11, 2013 · 15:44

The Hunchback of the NSA

We have been hearing information in this regard for some time now. I added my thoughts in my last blog, and as this is such a growing story, let me see if I can add some details to this by looking at a few issues from another side. (Source: www.NOS.nl , www.Guardian.co.uk , et al).

Edward Snowden, His view is that it is up to the people to decide what is to be done. Is it?

2003: Edward joins the Army to deploy to Iraq. He suffers injuries during (basic) training and cannot continue the training.

200?: Edward has been selected into the sanctum and becomes an IT specialist with the CIA, placed in Geneva. Well, that is a nice handle up from basic training isn’t it. Some people dream of opportunities like that all their life.

He gets a dose of disillusionment. (Not my words, just quoting here). The CIA methodology does not sit well with him. As a data analyst with a few decades of experience, including some not to mention data depositories, I can tell him now, that there is method to their madness. I know where he is at this point, because when it is all about data cleaning, integrity checks and verification, whatever you do feels like carrying a bucket of water towards the ocean, but hey, that is what it is. He then decides to quit. That is fair enough! Not all are meant for that lifestyle (including unappreciative bosses that we see by the container load in the commercial world), and as such we should recognise that some of these jobs have a decidedly larger chance of burning out.

2009: He joins the NSA. Really? After he left the CIA? That is an interesting step. Especially knowing that one worries you, the other would not?

Well Edward, this is what you signed up for! But fair enough, you wanted to give it a go. He then becomes NSA’s own Arnold Benedict. Oh joy! (I say in a slightly sarcastic voice) and he ends up feeding the information to the PRESS. I will add that this is slightly better than dumping all this on Wiki-leaks. I will also applaud him for going to the Guardian as I personally see these people as slightly more devoted to Ethics then anything Rupert Murdoch has at present in my humble opinion. Still, Arnold, oops, I meant Edward goes out into the limelight. Consider that his job was to make sure that the American people remained safe. Did he? Many people including terrorists knew this was likely to happen. Now they have confirmation and they might employ new methods, making it harder for the NSA to find them. So who did Edward Snowden actually service? From my point of view it was not the American people. Oh, and Hong Kong of all places? It seems to me that he preferred to be bankable to several potential donators. (But that is just my view).

The NSA has an uncomfortable job that must be done. The terrorist (or perhaps better stated the extremist) threat is real, and as such organisations like NSA, GCHQ and DSD need to look at information as it flows to keep its citizens safe. There is an ugly looking sterile approach to information. It has no emotion; it is simple collection of data. Yes, if anyone gets the wrong phone call we could be checked. Yet, the data is up to a point so complete that these organisations can easily see whether this is a fluke, or if there is more. Is that not the best solution? Most people have this illusion that we have some kind of privacy. The reality is that our information had been collected and data mined by large corporations well over a decade before governments started to collect data.

Do you think that I am kidding?

Take a day in your life. You fill up the tank at a gas station. You use your tank pass to get the 3% extra discount. You pay with either ‘their’ card, or your card. Nowadays it is rare that people pay cash. You go to work. Lunch means that you get lunch at some place. You get a snack and you get 1-2 extra items. Anything at these points that have a pass, or card is in 70% of the cases collected data. Now you go home, get dinner, use your customer loyalty card and you go home. Whenever you did not use cash (and in some cases even if you did) your details were recorded. EVERY day of your life! Whenever you use your mobile, your mobile carrier knows roughly where you are (with some smart-phones they know exactly where you are). All that data has been collected in one way or another.

Yes, even beyond what Orwell contemplated, you are a data collection point, you are marketable!

This is the ugly reality that has been happening since even before 2001. The big problem for you is that many of these companies need to survive, they need revenue, so to survive and you are for sale. Whatever you did is for sale. No matter the amount of cleaning you think they do. It takes but one linkable fact to your raw data details to know exactly who you are, where you are and where you are likely to go. People like the NSA only want to know whether you are a danger to the nation and the people around you. Are you? The others want to make money off you? Only you know how ‘dangerous’ you are, the others want you to spend cash where they like it. It is a never-ending story of greed. So who do you really need to worry about?

So when we see the news on how politicians are all about worries, all about what was done, then ask yourself, what questions have they been asking, investigating and contemplating when it came to the data handed by all to commercial facilities.

Getting back to Edward, whatever his views are. If he was TRULY for the people, and TRULY doing something to make the world better, then he would have done something about the real issues and all those e-mails from bankers and so on. That did not happen, did it? Didn’t Julian Assange ‘vanish’ to Ecuador before he could make good on that promise? So when people are driven by who hold the usage of their credit card, what do we call them then? As for bankable matters, seems that his move to Hong Kong could be all about bankability, but who is banking who?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2013 · 00:46

60% confiscated and counting in Cyprus!

We knew that the played situation of the Cyprus deal seemed to have a few more angles than foreseen. We saw the two-step dance routine by Jeroen Dijsselbloem and Christine Lagarde. We saw the final second meeting and agreements after hours of delay until the negotiations were set with its back against the wall. We saw the hard felt news on those Cypriots. Some of them were defiant; some of them were blaming different parties. The last part is all good and fine. But the news as stated on BBC and other stations now mention that those owning over 100,000 Euro, are likely to lose up to 60%.

A number of enormous strangling events have been placed in effect; ready to make sure that the money does not get out of Cyprus.

So what is wrong with this picture of the bail-out? Part of me does not disagree that a hefty price is to be paid. There is a very good run down to be seen on the BBC site at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16290598

It gives a short and to the point timeline. So you all should check this out.

You see, the press might not be asleep at the wheel, yet, even after all these high pea-cock statements about the freedom of the press and the need for self-control and no charter and all these other statements of ‘fact’ as to what they should be allowed to do, seem to remain EXTREMELY quiet in regards to the underlying facts of Cyprus at present. We know they ran into trouble when they took massive losses on the Greek government bonds. So, the Cypriot situation had been known about for a long time.

This brings us all to an interesting question. With the Greeks all getting over 150 billion Euros in bail-outs and THEIR bank customers not being cut, how come the Cypriots are getting sliced to this degree? More important, how come these sides of information in regards to press freedom did not make it to the newspapers to the extent it should have been shown?

So, the bailing out bank in Cyprus, if given 2% out of that Greek tragedy could have prevented the need for many savers to be chopped. Let us not forget that the Greek bailout in total has topped 320 BILLION Euro and it is Cyprus who had bought some those Greek bonds (amongst others) that got them into this mess to some extent.

This had nothing to do with Chancellor Merkel or Germany itself (who many seem to blame). This situation seems to show an almost basic lack of arithmetic skills with many parties. How interesting that this did not come up in the Dijsselbloem-Lagarde show of statements and posturing. This is NOT to blame them; I am just asking a few questions.

More important, the fact that this had been going on since 2010, means that either a few people are dropping not one ball, but several left, right and centre. Or the game played is about a whole lot more than just a bail-out. There is the additional issue, which is that bankers are allowed to too much of wielding, weaving and transferring issues that should have been out in the open for others to be judged of before this all was allowed. There is NO way in my mind that this could not have been prevented if proper steps had been taken by several parties. Consider that even in the final days that Cyprus was flaunting options to gas reserves to several parties including the Russians. Could this not have been done sooner? Several businesses in Europe and US could have stepped in in this attempt to raise businesses. If we can believe the voice President Obama about moving forward the US economy, than the fact that they have not been loudly all over this option seems odd, irregular and in my mind definitely questionable. So are these gas reserves for real or was this a quick Cypriot horse to open the IMF bank vaults? (The Trojan horse was already used in Troy).

In the first degree:
The Cyprus government had a first responsibility to take firm control. When the banks are over 85% of your GDP, a government does not get to look out of a window, blow their nose, then state ‘Did we miss something?‘ This level of utter incompetence (for a lack of a better word) is beyond belief. To me this reeks strongly of two partners (politicians and bankers) enabling each other, and then settling others with the bill. The issue for me is that there has been a total lack of transparency. That evidence becomes a lot stronger if we consider that their bad fortune is linked to borrowing to Greece. So when were those government bond deals done, and why were they not dealt with when they were giving hundreds of billions in Euro’s to clean up the Greek issue?

In the second:
All this reads like banks are moving huge chunks of money from place to place (or from loan to loan), with likely 1-2 executives getting a decent (read 7 figure number) commission out of that. Could this thought be true? (I was making a commercial assumption there). So why are these transactions not a lot more open and visible? This question should be taken a lot more seriously when you consider the 2004 and 2008 bank burns. Beyond that we are now likely to see a bail-out strategy between 2010 and 2013 that is more than just flawed. This entire implementation of bad banks will haunt us all down the track.

And should you consider that the money moves are not happening (which might be fair enough), then consider that people do NOT stick their necks out to THAT degree without a decent pay check behind that. These people would have known that there was a decent danger of bankrupting a nation. So whatever the deal was, it would have needed to be mucho sweet for whoever was adding his signature at the bottom.

Now let us look back at those points. The press has been too blatantly absent from all this. Yes, groups like BBC and Guardian have been active, but these are just two of a very small group that is actually digging deep. Most parties seemed to have repeated very little more than the Reuters newsflash, with all these hundreds of investigative journalists that seem to be all over the place does that not seem a little strange? Add to this the famous Cyprus bailout press meeting. How Mr Dijsselbloem was carefully phrasing abstracts like structures and solutions. Yet, until the Guardian asked their question, the ‘solution’ bad-bank seemed to be pussy footed around. Even after that, that phrase was carefully circumvented as much as possible by all parties.

This is why this last blog reads a lot more emotional than the other ones. From my point of view it is a simple approach. We are being managed. The situation is managed to a certain degree, the events are managed to a certain degree and the Cyprus Crises is shown in details, but people tended to focus for the most on the emotional parts. The people, their savings and the daily impact the banks had on their lives. A real proper timeline that gives us an account on how it drove itself over the edge is often sketchy. I find it all too sketchy.

Last is a smaller element which was reported in News.com.au on the evening of March 30th “Lawmaker Mavrides, meanwhile, confirmed that a committee appointed by President Nicos Anastasiades would investigate a list published by Greek media of Cypriot politicians who allegedly had loans forgiven”. This is a smaller part, yet, that means that there is more than just one link where politicians are making personal deals with bankers is not really that far-fetched. We should wait until the facts are investigated and reported, however, that investigation might take a lot longer with all the issues around. It does however give more credence to my earlier statement regarding the interaction between bankers and politicians.

Should you doubt me? That is fair enough!

Consider another avenue. On 30th November 2010 Jullian Assange revealed that the next target of his whistle-blowing website will be a major U.S. bank. The same date a red notice was issued by Interpol. It was around that time that the hunt for Assange intensified by a lot. Perhaps the one bank was just the beginning? If we look back at the issues we know now, then there is a chance that someone made mention of the LIBOR percentage tweaking issue.
If this is what frightens the US, then consider the consequences of a system like LIBOR being manipulated through the total value of trade. If that would have been off by 11.2%. Out of $1000T (UK and US combined) then that difference would be $112T.

I would love to get 1% finder fee of that! It would make me the FIRST Trillionaire in history (not bad for a person only dreaming to be a Law Lord some day).

This is however not about greed (I would be happy to settle on 1% of 1% of that amount), it is about the amounts that are in play here. We knew about the LIBOR percentage manipulation games played and those fines are still being sent out to the involved banks during this year. Yet the total amount does not seem to be under investigation. At least, not by a range of those loud shouting reporters we heard so much about in the last 6 months (who keep on shouting on how unfair Lord Justice Leveson was). When you look at the total value then you will read about statements of complications, non-clarity and other statements that give way to non-revealing reports. Interesting that something THIS important seems to be lacking transparency.

All this connects straight back to the IMF and Eurozone issues in play. For the chosen few it is extremely important that the slow waltz controlled by Mr Dijsselbloem and Mrs. Lagarde continues as is. Because this is NOT about what George Soros says in Inside Job (2010) “We have to dance until the music stops“. This same analogy was used in the movie Margin Call (2011). It is however the issue that in our reality the dance itself is the nightmare that keeps many financial institutions up at night. The moment that proof of large scale manipulations becomes visible (and proven) to the many, that is the moment Wall Street ends, the US goes bankrupt and our way of life stops quite literally. At that point it all stops. Then what?

So why not regulate these banks in tougher Draconian ways? These situations go beyond normal. Well, consider that there is not just the chance to lose a lot; there is the potential for these banks to win big. The problem becomes that the speculating approach banks have taken could be seen as one casino with too many independent well trained quality gamblers. To continue to remain in existence the banking system needs two factors.

First they need the one point advantage like in Blackjack (or the zero in Roulette); the second advantage is that they need more cash. This is the entire danger! The bank is no longer THAT rich and they are up against high stake gamblers who know the game through and through. So now their only playable assets left are the bonds no one wants and what is left of your pensions. So how long do you think you have any money left?

Last thoughts, how come the markets keep on going up? Financial markets are in the dump, Cyprus is in an utter depression, whilst the UK, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Italy remain in a state of recession. All these issues give me a clear impression that we are being managed in more ways than one.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,