Stop FBI Backdoors for Tech Products |
Saturday, 03 January 2015 16:37 |
Wyden writes: "Most prominently, James Comey, the FBI director, is lobbying Congress to require that electronics manufacturers create intentional security holes - so-called back doors - that would enable the government to access data on every American's cellphone and computer, even if it is protected by encryption."
Backdooring encryption would make technology more vulnerable to malicious hackers. (photo illustration: John Lund)
Stop FBI Backdoors for Tech Products
By Ron Wyden, Los Angeles Times
03 January 15
ardly a week goes by without a new report of some massive data theft that has put financial information, trade secrets or government records into the hands of computer hackers.
The best defense against these attacks is clear: strong data encryption and more secure technology systems.
The leaders of U.S. intelligence agencies hold a different view. Most prominently, James Comey, the FBI director, is lobbying Congress to require that electronics manufacturers create intentional security holes — so-called back doors — that would enable the government to access data on every American's cellphone and computer, even if it is protected by encryption.
Unfortunately, there are no magic keys that can be used only by good guys for legitimate reasons. There is only strong security or weak security.
Americans are demanding strong security for their personal data. Comey and others are suggesting that security features shouldn't be too strong, because this could interfere with surveillance conducted for law enforcement or intelligence purposes. The problem with this logic is that building a back door into every cellphone, tablet, or laptop means deliberately creating weaknesses that hackers and foreign governments can exploit. Mandating back doors also removes the incentive for companies to develop more secure products at the time people need them most; if you're building a wall with a hole in it, how much are you going invest in locks and barbed wire? What these officials are proposing would be bad for personal data security and bad for business and must be opposed by Congress.
In Silicon Valley several weeks ago I convened a roundtable of executives from America's most innovative tech companies. They made it clear that widespread availability of data encryption technology is what consumers are demanding.
Unfortunately, there are no magic keys that can be used only by good guys for legitimate reasons. There is only strong security or weak security.
It is also good public policy. For years, officials of intelligence agencies like the NSA, as well as the Department of Justice, made misleading and outright inaccurate statements to Congress about data surveillance programs — not once, but repeatedly for over a decade. These agencies spied on huge numbers of law-abiding Americans, and their dragnet surveillance of Americans' data did not make our country safer.
Most Americans accept that there are times their government needs to rely on clandestine methods of intelligence gathering to protect national security and ensure public safety. But they also expect government agencies and officials to operate within the boundaries of the law, and they now know how egregiously intelligence agencies abused their trust.
This breach of trust is also hurting U.S. technology companies' bottom line, particularly when trying to sell services and devices in foreign markets. The president's own surveillance review group noted that concern about U.S. surveillance policies “can directly reduce the market share of U.S. companies.” One industry estimate suggests that lost market share will cost just the U.S. cloud computing sector $21 billion to $35 billion over the next three years.
Tech firms are now investing heavily in new systems, including encryption, to protect consumers from cyber attacks and rebuild the trust of their customers. As one participant at my roundtable put it, “I'd be shocked if anyone in the industry takes the foot off the pedal in terms of building security and encryption into their products.”
Was Apple's FairPlay worse for the record labels than for consumers?
Was Apple's FairPlay worse for the record labels than for consumers?
Built-in back doors have been tried elsewhere with disastrous results. In 2005, for example, Greece discovered that dozens of its senior government officials' phones had been under surveillance for nearly a year. The eavesdropper was never identified, but the vulnerability was clear: built-in wiretapping features intended to be accessible only to government agencies following a legal process.
Chinese hackers have proved how aggressively they will exploit any security vulnerability. A report last year by a leading cyber security company identified more than 100 intrusions in U.S. networks from a single cyber espionage unit in Shanghai. As another tech company leader told me, “Why would we leave a back door lying around?”
Why indeed. The U.S. House of Representatives recognized how dangerous this idea was and in June approved 293-123, a bipartisan amendment that would prohibit the government from mandating that technology companies build security weaknesses into any of their products. I introduced legislation in the Senate to accomplish the same goal, and will again at the start of the next session.
Technology is a tool that can be put to legitimate or illegitimate use. And advances in technology always pose a new challenge to law enforcement agencies. But curtailing innovation on data security is no solution, and certainly won't restore public trust in tech companies or government agencies. Instead we should give law enforcement and intelligence agencies the resources that they need to adapt, and give the public the data security they demand.
|
Last Updated on Saturday, 03 January 2015 16:56 |
FOCUS | The Trans-Pacific Trade (TPP) Agreement Must Be Defeated |
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
Saturday, 03 January 2015 10:47 |
Sanders writes: "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers,
consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy."
U.S. senator Bernie Sanders addresses a crowd. (photo: AP)
The Trans-Pacific Trade (TPP) Agreement Must Be Defeated
By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News
03 January 15
he Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.
The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.
Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process which would deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.
The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.
During my 23 years in Congress, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA and PNTR with China. During the coming session of Congress, I will be working with organized labor, environmentalists, religious organizations, Democrats, and Republicans against the secretive TPP trade deal.
Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.
10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families
- TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than
130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Service Sector Jobs will be lost. At a time when corporations have already outsourced over 3 million service sector jobs in the U.S., TPP includes rules that will make it even easier for corporate America to outsource call centers; computer programming; engineering; accounting; and medical diagnostic jobs.
-
Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result of NAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. As a result of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. As a result of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs. The TPP would make matters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risks associated with operating in low-wage countries.
- U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
The TPP creates a special dispute resolution process that allows corporations to challenge any
domestic laws that could adversely impact their “expected future profits.”
These challenges would be heard before UN and World Bank tribunals which could require taxpayer
compensation to corporations.
This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including those
dealing with labor, health, and the environment.
-
Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down the
wages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights.
The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete with
desperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.
-
Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their future
profits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in other
trade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number of
countries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of the
nations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassing
domestic courts.
-
Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
The TPP would make it easier for countries like Vietnam to export contaminated fish and seafood into
the U.S. The FDA has already prevented hundreds of seafood imports from TPP countries because of salmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But the FDA only inspects 1-2 percent of food
imports and will be overwhelmed by the vast expansion of these imports if the TPP is agreed to.
-
Buy America laws could come to an end.
The U.S. has several laws on the books that require the federal government to buy goods and services
that are made in America or mostly made in this country. Under TPP, foreign corporations must be
given equal access to compete for these government contracts with companies that make products in
America. Under TPP, the U.S. could not even prevent companies that have horrible human rights
records from receiving government contracts paid by U.S. taxpayers.
-
Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
Big pharmaceutical companies are working hard to ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies they
have for prescription drugs by extending their patents (which currently can last 20 years or
more). This would expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, and
leave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs. Doctors without
Borders stated that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for ?ccess to medicines in developing countries.”
-
Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have been
successfully used to avoid financial crises. These controls range from establishing a financial
speculation tax to limiting the massive flows of speculative capital flowing into and out of countries
responsible for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. In other words, the TPP would expand the
rights and power of the same Wall Street firms that nearly destroyed the world economy just five
years ago and would create the conditions for more financial instability in the future.
Last year, I co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Harkin to create a Wall Street speculation tax of just 0.03 percent on trades of derivatives, credit default swaps, and large amounts of stock. If TPP were
enacted, such a financial speculation tax may be in violation of this trade agreement.
-
The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human
rights.
The State Department, the U.S. Department of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty
International have all documented Vietnam’s widespread violations of basic international standards
for human rights. Yet, the TPP would reward Vietnam’s bad behavior by giving it duty free access to
the U.S. market.
-
The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.
Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries that agreed to it. Other countries, like China, could be allowed to join in the future. For example, Canada and Mexico joined TPP negotiations in 2012 and Japan joined last year.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
Last Updated on Saturday, 03 January 2015 11:58 |
|
What Would Happen if the Int'l Criminal Court Indicted Israel's Netanyahu? |
Saturday, 03 January 2015 16:42 |
Cole writes: "If the International Criminal Court takes up Israeli government actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, it could well find specific officials guilty of breaches of the Rome Statute of 2002."
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could be brought before the ICC by the Palestinians. (photo: Jack Guez/AFP)
What Would Happen if the Int'l Criminal Court Indicted Israel's Netanyahu?
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
03 January 15
f the International Criminal Court takes up Israeli government actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, it could well find specific officials guilty of breaches of the Rome Statute of 2002. Article 7 forbids “Crimes against Humanity,” which are systematically repeated war crimes. Among these offenses is murder, forcible deportation or transfer of members of a group, torture, persecution of Palestinians (an “identifiable group”) and “the crime of Apartheid.”
The Israeli government murdered Palestinian political leaders (not just guerrillas) and have routinely illegally expelled Palestinians from the West Bank or from parts of the West Bank illegally incorporated into Israel. They deploy torture against imprisoned Palestinians. Their policies on the West Bank, of building squatter settlements on Palestinian land from which Palestinians are excluded, is only one example of Apartheid policies. Getting a conviction on Article VII should be child’s play for the prosecutor. And there are other articles which Israel is guilty of contravening.
If Israeli government officials or leaders of the squatters in the Palestinian West Bank were convicted by the ICC, would there be any hope of enforcement? Israeli firms doing business in the West Bank would be exposed to billions of dollars of legal actions in European courts and would be unable to sell their goods in Europe, if they were declared fruits of crimes against humanity and apartheid. If the legal actions were brought by Palestine, Israel would be ordered to pay it massive reparations.
The ICC can only work through member states. But it could authorize those states to capture and imprison Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, for instance. While it is unlikely that this could happen, Israel’s leadership might not be able to visit most of Europe, which would isolate them and much reduce their influence. The European institutions in Brussels would take an ICC conviction seriously.
The African Union and the Arab world decided to protect Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from the ICC verdict against him. According to the African Union, he can freely visit African countries. But he cannot visit Europe or large numbers of other countries without risking arrest. And even in Africa, al-Bashir in 2013 had to abruptly leave the Nigerian capital of Abuja after only 24 hours because a Nigerian international law association filed a court case to have him arrested.
Over a third of Israeli trade is with Europe, and technology transfers from Europe are crucial to Israel. It could be kicked out of European scientific and technological organizations, where it presently has courtesy memberships. And Israeli leaders could end up being afraid to visit European capitals lest they be arrested, Pinochet style (even if governments ran interference for them, they could not be sure to escape lawsuits by citizen groups and could not be insulated from activist judges).
The world wouldn’t end for Israeli leaders if they were convicted, as it hasn’t ended for al-Bashir. But the consequences would be real and unpleasant, and over time could have a substantial impact.
|
Last Updated on Saturday, 03 January 2015 18:07 |
FOCUS | Ending Our Own Racism |
Saturday, 03 January 2015 13:25 |
Galindez writes: "Prejudice rooted in fear of what one doesn't understand is present in us all."
The Black Lives Matter protests have been likened to the civil rights movement. (photo: AP)
Ending Our Own Racism
By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
03 January 15
have heard many claim they do not have a “racist bone in their body.” Technically that is true, bones can’t be racist – but people who say they are not racist are in denial. Prejudice rooted in fear of what one doesn’t understand is present in us all. The key to ending or not acting on that fear is knowledge drawn from life’s experiences.
Fear itself can be healthy. Fearing someone waving a gun, or threatening people with violent behavior, is healthy. What isn’t healthy is fearing people based on their race or appearance. It is understandable that, when in a new environment, people experience fear based on the stereotypes they have learned watching television or reading stories influenced by the authors’ prejudices.
That is why it is so important to diversify your life experiences. If you live your life on your side of the tracks and don’t experience how others live, fear will be present when you encounter the unknown. There are many things you can do to to keep these fears from being expressed in racist, sexist, or bigoted manners.
The first is to acknowledge them. I live in a diverse neighborhood in Washington DC. I feel safe when walking home unless I’m confronted by behavior that warrants healthy fear. I have long acknowledged that there are thugs in every race and class, but that was not always the case. There was a time when I feared black men because I thought they were more likely to mug or bully me.
I grew up in a very white neighborhood in a small town in upstate New York. My father is Puerto Rican, so I was one of the few minorities in the town, but I never experienced prejudice based on that, since I looked white and was middle class. I went to a public school that was 98% white, and the 2% who weren’t were brought in by a program to give them a better chance to succeed. There was also my best friend Alex. His parents were from Ethiopia. Alex was born in the United States and grew up in our small town. He was one of us. He didn’t act like the blacks we saw in the movies or on television. I never feared Alex or his family.
When I was 16, I ran away from home. The reasons for that are for another story. I hitchhiked south, spending my first night on the streets of Scranton, Pennsylvania. The streets late at night were a scary place. I tried to avoid all interactions. It was the early eighties: the only reason a middle-class white boy could be walking the streets late at night was to score pot.
Of course, I was scared of anyone who approached me at 3 a.m. It was a healthy fear, but I learned that night that it wasn’t right. One of the dealers even told me where to go to get breakfast and find a place to sleep the next night. Some of my prejudice was chipped away. I was home a few days later, back to white middle-class America. Well, that was about to change.
I wasn’t getting along with my father, so at 17 it was off to the Army. My two-year stint in the military was uneventful. The Army life was still segregated. I hung out with white guys, and the blacks hung together. It was the military, very different from interacting as “civilians,” so I don’t think much progress was made. I imagine I became more comfortable around people of color, but no one event stands out to me like the events that would happen on my college campus.
It’s 1983, and I’m using my GI bill money to go to college. I’m on the campus of Syracuse University, walking past a divestment rally. On the stage is a young black boy in a wheelchair. As he was describing what it was like to grow up in apartheid South Africa, my life changed forever. I became an activist that day. My work against apartheid, and later other causes, did not make me a non-racist, but it did chip away and make me less racist. I learned about other cultures, I worked with African Americans, and it had an impact on me, but I still was influenced by racist thoughts and fears.
After college I moved to Washington DC. I remember walking through Lafayette Park for the first time and a hippie named Sunrise calling out to me. He said my mind was too closed to listen. I turned around and ended up spending my first night at the “Peace Park Anti-Nuclear Vigil.” I was fascinated that people were dedicating their whole lives to rid the world of nuclear weapons. After talking to Sunrise, Philip, Concepcion, Ellen and Thomas, I found myself in a sleeping bag being awakened by a policeman who handed me a ticket for “camping.” I was outraged – with all of the people forced to live on the streets, it was illegal to stay warm in a sleeping bag? I later learned it was the actual sleeping that was illegal. I was hooked, I was a full time activist again. I was mentored by people like Phil Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Roger Newell, and Lisa Fithian, to name a few.
Of course, they taught me that racism was wrong, but that knowledge does not erase the prejudice and fear engrained within us. I was mugged twice during those years in Washington, but my eyes were opening. It wasn’t that the young black men who mugged me were black that caused them to act, it was that they were poor and victims of their environment. I was making lots of black friends, many of them homeless and with reason to be angry. But like me, they chose a different path. My time with the antinuclear vigil and later working and living at the largest homeless shelter in the country taught me that it wasn’t race that led to a life of crime, it was one’s environment.
On the streets, in the shelter, and later in jail, I realized that violent behavior was for survival. Racists equate behavior with race, while it is clear from my experiences that behavior is taught and influenced by one’s experiences. People are not born gang-bangers. People are not born racists. Racism is taught, and develops from ignorance and fear. It is the same with the behavior that makes us fear others. What we fear is a by-product of the environment we grew up in. When we acknowledge this, we achieve the first step toward ending racism, sexism, and bigotry.
It will still be there. I still catch myself fearing people based on their appearance, including skin color. I am less likely to fear a white person that approaches me than some black people. But my life experiences have lessened that fear and made me less prejudiced. So here are some steps you can take to become less racist.
-
Volunteer at a homeless shelter. During my time living in community at the Community for Creative Nonviolence shelter in Washington DC, I saw the other side of those who thought they had to be a thug to survive. Don’t just serve the soup but talk to people who you would otherwise avoid contact with. You will find they are not any different than you or me.
-
Volunteer at an inner city school. You will learn that kids are victims of their surroundings. As I’ve said, people are not born violent, violence is a product of the environment they are raised in.
-
Don’t avoid neighborhoods of color. Diversity will do more to end racism than any laws or programs. Understanding each other will break down the walls that divide us.
-
Travel. Visiting other cultures is another way to eliminate the fear we have of what we don’t understand.
-
Education. Take classes that teach from a non-Eurocentric viewpoint. Learn foreign languages so you can better understand people from other ethnic groups.
I hear some of you saying, “What about reverse racism?” Well, my response is simple. Any race can take my advice, but the bottom line is: ending racism begins in your own heart.
Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
Last Updated on Saturday, 03 January 2015 14:02 |
|