Tag Archive for: FBI

ASPI suggests

Image courtesy of Flickr user Jasn

Welcome back to another week of ASPI suggests, where we’ll kick off with a quick look at some of the debate around FBI chief James Comey’s announcement on Tuesday that the Bureau won’t be recommending criminal charges over Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. Politico asks the simplest question: while everyone’s looking at the emails that have been made public, what’s missing from Clinton’s email history and why might those emails have been deleted? The Washington Post questions Comey’s presentation, which saw him spend 14 minutes building an unquestionable case for Clinton’s negligence before branding it as solely ‘extremely careless’. And The Atlantic takes a detailed look at this and other familiar scandals (from Lewinski to Benghazi) that might come back to bite Clinton during the race for the Oval Office.

But there’s no way HRC is having a worse week than The Donald, who has missed the opportunity to use the ‘ready-made attack ad’ that is Comey’s verdict. (Check out this piece from Vanity Fair on how Clinton’s victory is actually Trump’s gain). This week, Trump not only made his (thinly-veiled) debut as Marvel Comics’ latest villain and praised Saddam Hussein at a North Carolina rally, but was also forced to defend an image used by his campaign—widely viewed as anti-Semitic—which degenerated into a Twitter row with Clinton on… Frozen. Let it go, Donald.

Another headline-topper this week was the release of the long-awaited Chilcot report on the reasons behind the UK’s entry to the war in Iraq, which clocked in at a cool 2.6 million words. Two good pieces from The Economist unpack the findings of the report: the first on the lessons on supporting the invasion of Iraq, the second on the report’s significance. An article by Peter Leahy in The Australian argues that we shouldn’t be calling for our own inquiry anytime soon, and openDemocracy UK republished a 2003 interview with Ron G Manley—who was responsible for chemical weapons destruction operations in Iraq in the early 90s—on the legitimacy of claims about Iraq’s WMDs. But if an in-depth understanding of the whole report is what you’re after, follow The @ChilcotBot: the Chilcot report, one Tweet at a time.

But if Chilcot hasn’t been enough to distract you from what’s been happening in the UK with the Brexit referendum, have a gander at this Venn diagram from Vox which looks at why no moves have been made towards formally withdrawing from the EU—because it’s impossible to do so ‘without causing a political or economic crisis’.

For a longer weekend read, look no further than this stellar new piece from The New Yorker which frames music as a tool of evil and discusses its use by various authoritarian dictatorships and in interrogation techniques:

‘Music has accompanied acts of war since trumpets sounded at the walls of Jericho, but in recent decades it has been weaponized as never before—outfitted for the unreal landscape of modern battle’

And finally, as the PCA’s ruling on The Philippines v. China case approaches, this week’s fresh research is dominated by maritime security analysis. In International Affairs (PDF), Katherine Morton asks if it’s possible to balance China’s South China Sea ambitions with a legitimate maritime order, while over at War on the Rocks an interesting new piece (adapted from this report by The National Bureau of Asian Research) offers some thoughts on cooperative initiatives to ease US–China maritime tensions. A new publication from the International Crisis Group (PDF) looks at methods to prevent China and Japan butting heads in the East China Sea from becoming all-out war, and CSIS’s Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative examines Vietnam’s island-building plans, comparing them to China’s larger-scale and less environmentally-friendly efforts.

Podcasts

Harvard’s Shorenstein Center has released an interview (14 mins) with Paul Wood, a BBC world affairs correspondent, on his new paper, ‘The Pen and the Sword: Reporting ISIS’. Not for the faint-hearted, Wood’s research focuses on the experiences of journalists kidnapped and held hostage by the caliphate. He also queries the role of journalists reporting on the Middle East: are they there to unbiasedly inform the world, or to emotively rally a global response to atrocities?

In this week’s episode (28 mins) of Foreign Policy’s podcast series The E.R., David Rothkopf, Kori Schake, Ben Pauker and Financial Times’ Ed Luce ask whether globalisation—or simply a rise in nationalism and xenophobia—is to blame for the UK’s au revoir to the European Union, and if similar voter demographics across the Atlantic might spell trouble for the US presidential election.

Videos

Love him or hate him, there’s no doubt that Barack Obama is one of the most consequential presidents in the history of US politics. Vox takes a brief look (5 mins) at some of his most divisive accomplishments, including appointing two of the four women who have served in the US Supreme Court (both of whom played a role in legalising same-sex marriage in the US) and moving to normalise US–Cuba relations.

Another pick on the US, this great little video (4 mins) from the Council on Foreign Relations looks at how the trade policy of the future president will affect the lives of millions of Americans, and offers some thoughts on how to ‘promote growth, while helping Americans adjust to new competition and ensuring regulatory standards’.

And finally, Slate offers a big-picture look (4 mins) at the military strategies employed by the Bolton army and Jon Snow’s troops in the mind-blowing 9th episode of Game of Thrones, which is said to be inspired by the battle of Cannae from the Second Punic War in 216 BC. A must-watch for any GoT and/or strategy wonk.

Events

Canberra: ANU’s Bell School will host a discussion next Monday with Dr Andrew Futter on the nexus between the rise of cyber warfare capabilities and nuclear weapons. This talk will be a great way to get ahead of the curve on a significant issue for regulating global nuclear security, so make sure you register your interest here.

Melbourne: Head along to AIIA’s Melbourne HQ on 12 July for what’s bound to be a great talk on India’s response and reaction to China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ policy initiative. Dr Pradeep Taneja will take a look at the changing discourses of India’s neighbours and expanding the Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean

Apple versus the State: public posturing and rhetoric on encryption


‘In 30 years of practice I don’t think I’ve seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case.’

While that quote might resemble the fallout of an acrimonious divorce, it was in fact from Bruce Sewell, Apple’s lead attorney, in response to federal prosecutors’ formal position in the ongoing San Bernardino encryption case.

It serves to illustrate just how hostile the war of words between Apple executives and American officials (and supporters of those camps) has become over the last month.

The past two weeks has seen the big guns enter the fray once more.

At a tech conference in Texas, President Barack Obama gave fairly balanced commentary on the situation, while ultimately coming down on the side of law enforcement. He cautioned that it would be unwise to take an ‘absolutist’ view on the topic, and went on to state:

‘So if your argument is strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should create black boxes, that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for two hundred, three hundred years and it’s fetishizing our phones above every other value. And that can’t be the right answer.’

The ‘absolutist’ view is certainly one that Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken. Taking advantage of the always-hyped launch of new Apple products, Cook began his presentation with a call for debate:

‘We need to decide as a nation how much power the government should have over our data and over our privacy… We did not expect to be in this position, at odds with our own government. But we believe strongly that we have a responsibility to help you protect your data and protect your privacy. We owe it to our customers and we owe it to our country… This is an issue that impacts all of us and we will not shrink from this responsibility.’

While there are clearly some altruistic intentions behind Apple’s challenge, Cook failed to mention that Apple has a share price to protect, and—as I explained in my previous piece on this matter—encryption has become a selling point for tech customers.

The iPhone has become far and away the best-selling product in Apple’s line-up, accounting for 62.54% of the company’s total revenue in the final quarter of 2015. In the context of a saturated US smart phone market and a Chinese economic slowdown, there are expectations that iPhone sales will contract this year. Apple faces a sizable pressure to protect its historically incredible market performance.

Unfortunately, its share price at the beginning of February 2016 was at its lowest in two years. However, it appears that the company’s position on encryption isn’t doing their business any harm. All publicity is good publicity after all, and Apple’s share price has risen some US$10 since February this year.

A number of ex-senior US officials, including the former Director of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and former White House cyber czar, Richard Clarke, have been speaking out against the US government on the encryption issue. Chertoff recently argued that developing software to weaken the iPhone’s existing protections would be akin to ‘creating a biological weapon’ and would be entirely counter-productive to broader national security, potentially enabling a wider cross-section of criminals and governments with access. Clarke took this one step further, stating that ‘encryption and privacy are larger issues than fighting terrorism.’

There’s also a clear difference of opinion within the US government on this issue. While the FBI and Department of Justice have dug their heels in, the Departments of Commerce and State and the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy have all argued that encryption is integral to protecting Amercian secrets, technologies and industries.

Most significantly, US Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the RSA conference in March:

‘Just to cut to the chase, I’m not a believer in back doors or a single technical approach… I don’t think it’s realistic. I don’t think that’s technically accurate.’

Clearly the Defense Department is concerned about sustaining it’s hard-won relationships with Silicon Valley. The rapturous applause that greeted Carter’s intervention will have put his mind at ease for now.

The biggest twist in the case occurred this week on the day before the court hearing was scheduled to take place. The FBI asked the court to postpone the hearing claiming that an ‘outside party’ had demonstrated a feasible way to crack the iPhone in question. It’s a fascinating development and there should naturally be questions about why the offer came at this late stage.

Richard Clarke claimed that the FBI wasn’t seeking help from the likes of the NSA as ‘they just want the precedent [of court-ordered access]’ to be established by the case.

There is no clear consensus on the encryption issue, and it can be expected to continue to split opinion and drive high emotion on all sides of the debate.

Regardless of whether the court case takes place or not, the fall-out from recent events will take its toll. The last of these three pieces will look at some of the potential consequences of the encryption debate we’re currently having.

 

Cyber wrap

Image courtesy of Flickr user Stuart Webster

The encryption debate has raged on this week with new developments in the rift between the US government and Apple over access to the iPhone used by Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino attackers. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently described the FBI’s behaviour as ‘overreach’ and made it clear that the backdoor access being requested is ‘too dangerous to create’. At Apple’s product launch on Monday, Cook also stated that Apple ‘will not shrink from this responsibility’ to protect the privacy of their customers.

In an unexpected twist, the Department of Justice moved to postpone court proceedings, having apparently been offered an alternative method to access Farook’s phone data that may render Apple’s cooperation unnecessary. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym cancelled Tuesday’s hearing and the government has until 5 April to determine whether it wishes to pursue the case. The Justice Department didn’t provide details of its prospective encryption-cracking methodology, but the announcement came only a day after researchers at John Hopkins University revealed a weakness in Apple’s encryption software.

The encryption discussion continues to simmer across the Atlantic. A report in the New York Times reveals new details of the tactics used by the perpetrators of the November Paris attacks. The discovery of a number of disposable phones in a rubbish bin outside the Bataclan Theatre suggests the team’s disciplined use of old-school burner phones, not encryption, might have been a key to their success in avoiding detection.

The tension between digital privacy and public security keeps finding new life. In the wake of the tragic events in Brussels last night, questions are already being asked over the role encryption played in the execution of the attacks.

Bangladesh’s central bank is considering a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in response to the massive cyber breach it experienced earlier this month. Hackers successfully stole $81 million from Bangladesh Bank’s account with the NY Fed by instructing funds be transferred to bank accounts in the Philippines. It has been described as ‘one of the largest cyber robberies in history’ and has shaken confidence in the Fed despite the bank’s claim that ‘there is no evidence that any Fed systems were compromised.’ Bangladesh Bank has reportedly hired a US lawyer and according to an internal report is ‘preparing the ground to make a legitimate claim for the loss of funds against the FRB’. The disappearance of cyber crime expert, Tanveer Hassan Zoha, after his discussions with police and media about the incident, suggests this will be one to watch.

This week the UK has revealed its new national cyber security strategy will focus on protecting its economy. The first task of the new National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), announced in November, will be to focus on engagement with the private sector. The NCSC will work with the Bank of England to develop industry’s understanding of cyber threats and help set standards of cyber resilience. The move is described as a response to the ‘industrial-scale theft’ of sensitive data that cost British businesses an average of £375,000 last year.

Finally, NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence has made another contribution to the cyber debate. Their new report, International Cyber Norms: Legal, Policy & Industry Perspectives, was developed through a series of workshops during 2014 and 2015, and seeks to explain the concept of cyber norms and the differing approaches to the issue across research areas. The book was launched on 18 March in Tallinn, Estonia—itself a notable city for cyber wonks—and features chapters by UNSW Canberra professors Toni Erskine and Greg Austin.

Cyber wrap

PS4

The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed US Congress last week and has interesting implications for US cybersecurity policy. The NDAA instructs US Cyber Command to undertake cyber ‘war games’ to ensure the nation’s cyber capabilities rival its opponents’ in a future offensive cyber conflict. The Act explicitly identifies Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as the countries that the US must be most prepared to confront in cyberspace. It also authorises a budget of up to US$200 million for the Secretary of Defense to perform an ‘evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapons systems’. The move is partly in response to an inspection of the weapons program last year, which revealed widespread network vulnerabilities, unpatched software and weak passwords. Finally, the NDAA entrusts US Cyber Command with its own procurement budget designed to facilitate the rapid adaptation required for effective cybersecurity. All 1,300 pages of the Defense spending bill are set to be approved and signed by President Obama this week.

War gaming seems to be the theme of the week, with the US and the UK teaming up to test the cyber resilience of their financial institutions. Last Thursday’s exercise involved each state simulating an attack on the other’s financial sector to test the levels of information sharing, communication with the public and management of the incident. Participating actors included the White House National Security Council, the US Department of the Treasury, the FBI and the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the US side, and the UK Intelligence Community, the Bank of England and Her Majesty’s Treasury on the British side. Originally announced by President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron back in January, this war-game was designed to enhance transatlantic cooperation and collective resilience in cyberspace.

Privacy is a significant concern for internet users and apparently prison inmates are no exception. Securus Technologies, a leading provider of phone services inside US prisons, suffered a data breach that revealed the company has been recording all inmates’ conversations. The Intercept released a report claiming that a hacker provided them with Securus records of over 70 million phone calls that not only includes the call metadata (time, date, duration etc.) but also a ‘recording URL’ of the conversation audio. Now, it’s actually a widely accepted procedure to monitor inmates’ personal phone calls for security reasons. What makes this revelation interesting is that at least 14,000 of them are between inmates and attorneys.  If that’s proven to be the case, it may have undermined inmates’ Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and has been described by David Fathi, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, as ‘the most massive breach of attorney-client privilege in US history’. While Securus is currently denying the existence of those illegal records, the company is also claiming that the data in question wasn’t obtained through a hack, but leaked by an individual with authorized access.

A number of recent events have revived questions around the relationship between the FBI, Carnegie Melon University (CMU), and arrests of dark net users. Tor Project Director Roger Dingledine is claiming that the FBI paid CMU at least US$1 million for its research that de-anonymises Tor users. Last July, two CMU researchers, Alexander Volynkin and Michael McCord, were going to hold a talk at the Black Hat Conference titled ‘you don’t have to be the NSA to break Tor’; however they pulled out at the last minute. Shortly after, the FBI conducted Operation Onymous, a multi-agency effort that took down multiple Tor-based websites, including Silk Road 2.0, and led to 17 arrests. Court documents from the proceeding trial of drug distributor Brian Farrell reveal the prosecution based Farrell’s involvement with Silk Road 2.0 on information obtained from ‘a university-based research institute’. According to Dingledine, the implied collaboration between CMU and the FBI to expose Tor-users’ information isn’t only unethical, but also a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the FBI didn’t obtain a warrant. The FBI has stated that those accusations are ‘inaccurate’, although speculation remains over whether it’s the accusation or the amount paid that’s inaccurate.

The tragic terrorist attacks that occurred in Paris last weekend have reverberated in cyberspace. The events re-opened the debate around encrypted messaging technologies and whether tech companies should be required to provide law enforcement with ‘back-doors’ to their encrypted communications. It was only last month that the Obama administration decided to not force companies to open their backdoors, however ISIS’ use of encrypted apps, such as Wickr, Signal and Telegram, to broadcast responsibility for both the crash of the Russian jet in the Sinai Peninsula at the end of October and last weekend’s Paris attacks has intensified demands. It’s suggested that ISIS exploited the encrypted connections of PlayStation 4 to execute the Paris attacks. Many are blaming the continued prioritisation of privacy over security following the Snowden revelations.

You might also be interested to know that hactivist collective Anonymous has joined the coalition and declared war on ISIS with #OpParis.

And finally, speaking of cyberspace and terrorism, check out this great Sydney Morning Herald article that distinguishes between cyber terrorism in Hollywood and reality.

Cyber wrap

China has allegedly ‘gone postal’ this week, stealing the personal details of the US Postal Service’s 800,000 employees.

We’re starting this week off in the States with the FBI successfully crossing off a name on their most wanted cyber list. John Gordon Baden, wanted in connection with the identify theft of 40,000 individuals, was apprehended in Tijuana, Mexico. He and his co-conspirators allegedly used the stolen details to siphon millions of dollars from victims’ bank accounts by buying expensive products and taking out loans. Baden’s arrest was the result of several anonymous tip-offs and quick work on the ground by the Tijuana Municipal Police. The collaboration serves as a good example of what can be achieved through international collaboration on the cybercrime-fighting front.

Thousands of international delegates and media representatives are streaming into Brisbane this week ahead of the G20 Summit. Large international summits have proven to be attractive targets for both state-backed intelligence gathering and hacktivist operations. A phishing campaign was used during a G20 Finance Minister’s meeting in Paris 2011 to try and gain access to sensitive information. During the London Olympics plans were also laid to target critical national infrastructure. The Australian Signals Directorate’s CSOC has released a handy Protect Notice on the G20 Summit for Australian government attendees, but it also contains sound advice for all those attending. Read more