He had a team of five people That's Bill Binney. Here's the Wikipedia quickread:. Updated at 3. Metadata is where the power is. And he helped write the "necessary and proportionate" part. And doesn't support keyword filtering. The text hasn't got a clause saying no censorship A: You can look at a bot It's about telling people you're doing it. Q: You said knowledgeable people knew spying was going on A: I think most European parliamentarians did not know what was going on - don't underestimate their lack of technical knowledge.
I didn't think they were doing things like XKeyScore - I didn't think they were stupid enough, that it would cost too much.
But it's entirely different when it's out in public and then someone puts it on the floor in the United Nations - the US didn't reply. In diplomatic conferences states tend not to attack each other.
Caspar Hauser oder Die Trägheit des Herzens (German Edition)
Domestic politics And it is a trade — if the US can get him they'll put him in jail forever. Q Jacob Applebaum : He didn't defect, the US cancelled his passport while he was en route to other democratic countries which he could have gone to. He's not a defector — he's enabled all of us to have information we coudn't have got any other way. We should not use the language of the oppressor - he should be getting asylum here because he has revealed serious crimes against everyone in this room. Calls on the Swiss government to lead the way in this, especially by revisiting International Telecoms Regulations, and consider the "necessary and proportionate principles" 0f monitoring.
Points out how the international telcos are gently allowing US to tap phone networks. US President Obama said in May "Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not include monitoring internet communications. Open question: did he not know, or did he think it would be legal? Has to be consistent with human rights. But poker is a game of skill - though it's never been tested in court whether it is gambling to play or not.
US government didn't go to those lengths - it just went after big gambling sites, which caved. If he had been around now, it would have taken him just a day. And now we move on to Dubai - and he recalls the headlines from the Icann meeting of : "UN to take over internet to carry out censorship". That wasn't our headline. A quick recap of what we learnt from Snowden Hill has an Android phone but refuses to sign into Google, so can't sign into Google Play, so can't get apps so couldn't get app for this conference.
Updated at 2. Hill's details are here. Q: on a psuedo-random number generator which NIST suddenly recommended against using. A: We need cost-benefit analysis — nobody ever says "this is too much intelligence". TSA is easier place to start — you know the cost of full body scans, what's the benefit? Reinforcing the cockpit door makes sense; taking off your shoe doesn't. Q: Jacob Applebaum, who calls himself an American exile living in Europe : are you horrified by how the US treats people like me?
A: we're living in a world where if it's immoral, as long as it's legal it's UK. But writing for US audience, the idea that EU citizens are "lesser" is pervasive. That's just the way the system is built. A: I believe the maths is robust. But we know they have done stuff because they're crowing about it.
But - something with Elliptic Curve; or factoring logs; or RC4. Other than that - they break a lot of crypto, by hacking around the crypto, on the random number generators, or getting keys, or compromising root certificates — to get that so they can do it in human time Q: Metadata A: The cost of saving data is so cheap that you're going to save it just in case But companies like Facebook and Microsoft are really pissed off that they're losing business because of this NSA stuff.
Though for more people this is not an issue. Technology determines what's feasible, law determines what's allowable. And the people who grew up on the internet need to take over. One of the lessons of these leaks is that surveillance is robust - given the choice of doing A or B, the NSA does both. US has a three-day warning via its intelligence of the Syrian chemical attack. Lots of possibilities for why nothing was done: perhaps nothing was done because collecting it meant that it was collected, and to reveal it would mean that sources might be compromised.
But we've seen nothing from the TSA either. When someone says security v privacy, say "a fence. A doorlock. The only thing that has made flying safer is locking cockpit doors and allowing passengers to fight back - that's not privacy. Fundamentally a liberty v control debate: "privacy increases power, so when you have forced openness in government, it increases liberty; force it in people and it decreases their liberty.
IF you go to a doctor and he says 'take off your clothes' you can't say 'you first'. If a police officer demands your ID, it doesn't help if you see their ID first. There's an imbalance. In the US you get ID checks all the time, where years ago it would have been abhorrent. In ten years' time the cameras will be everywhere and they'll know who you are based on the devices you're wearing, your facc, everything about you.
- Caspar Kittel: Arias and Cantatas;
- Kaspar Ulenberg.
- Appelbaum Q+A 2.
But you know that they have one. Survey found that if you put a big paragraph about privacy policies in front of people when they first log on to a site, they disclose less. The more you think people are sharing, the more you will share. Privacy levels are set locally. If you start asking public questions to much more personal ones, people block off answering sooner than if you go in the opposite direction start with a very personal question, make it more general. Sites are designed so that you will share more. It's not breaking the law, it's basic psychological manipulation.
You're a product. Google doesn't have great product service. However, products you, the people don't get so well treated. A world where nothing is ever ephemeral is going to be different in all sorts of ways. There's no such thing as a throwaway conversation. Maybe the world will be like a giant airport security zone where nobody can ever make a joke. Corporations use government rules to protect themselves, and vice-versa. Eg US companies not releasing information because they claim there's a national security interest - eg about pollution records detailing pollution might give clues to a Sikrit Plant.
If you hired a private detective to put someone under surveillance, they'd see who they spoke to, where they went, what they bought. That's metadata. When the president says 'it's just metadata', he's saying "it's surveillance". And cloud computing exacerbates this.
We're leaving this on someone else's computer, that's what cloud computing is - your data on someone else's hard drive. And cloud is probably the endpoint - access from wherever you are, so likely this is the end - we're going to have our data where it makes commercial sense, and that's on someone else's machine because it's too expensive to maintain myself. Gmail with email, data brokers, phone records with carriers Different in Europe,which I like.
But national intelligence operates in a grey area. He says that technology "grows the box" of legal regulation - rather like a gas expanding, keeping ahed of the laws holding them back. Schneier says that he still uses POP Post Office Protocol for his email - for many techies that went out in around And Windows 8 is heading in that direction. There are good business and consumer reasons why that's happening. But we are losing control of our data. Audience is fed and watered, and Bruce Schneier, longtime security and privacy advocate, is speaking.
Wi-Fi surveillance, Bluetooth surveillance.. Automatic face recognition; voice recognition Spanish telecoms company uses voice recognition - which meant that Jacob Applebaum won't call you if you're in Spain. I think the trends are important because they point to what's happening.
Privacy and surveillance: Jacob Applebaum, Caspar Bowden and more
Data is a byproduct of the information society. Everything done on a computer creates a transaction record. Your mobile phone creates records - location, call.. Data is a byproduct of almost all our socialisation now because it's mediated by computers, except for incidents when we're in the same room.
Kaspar Hauser Lied - German Literature
Even if we're in the same house. Because we're in different rooms. European Council having hearings on privacy and internet tomorrow - Duncan Zircon Campbell is going there. Emmanuel Barraud, who convened the conference and is running the day: "Can everyone who does not have a Facebook account raise their hand? A: Understanding the problem is vital Why is this happening? It's not counterterrorism, or cyberattack prevention We're still trying to figure out why this is happening. Isn't that illegal? It seems illegal. Are we living in post-democratic times?
It seems that way in the US. A: I would have to say that national security exceptionalism is big.. Belgacom, should challenge before the courts. Maybe these revelations will annoy judges. It's vital not to give up on legal solutions. It's good that [Liberty and Privacy International] have taken this action. UK has some big getouts in its law: "information could be listened to or read if the secretary of state considered this was required for national security… or the protection of the UK economy". Basically, we seem to be concluding that there's no clear case law, but that ECHR lets you leak.
Is the UK going to sue the US? But Liberty has launched a case And it's not just personal data, but all data on a server that's protected under European law - at least, that's the argument. Though you can't get the numbers. So can law and policy stop it? In Netherlands found that the Dutch medical records were being built by a US company; they raised question about whether that could be shared with the US.
Dutch minister said that "we have medical secrecy! Intelligence sharing means that you get a race to the bottom. Like cycling - if all but one stops doping, then that one will keep winning. The race to the bottom in intelligence is to collect everything so you have more to share so you can get more in a sharing arrangement with other nations. But: nobody gets fired. A good point. Not a single head has rolled - that we know of - over this whole affair. Total Information Awareness - was given up as too expensive in , but it's back in , even if not under that name.
Points back to Vogels in October talking of "fearmongering" - and suggesting that Vogels "already knew" about the CIA deal coming down the track when he made that statement. Elsewhere on the Guardian site, Phil Zimmermann - inventor of PGP - says that email just can't be made safe , because of its use of headers, which can be scooped up. See earlier linking to the New York Times.
Wearing a t-shirt saying " Yo, where are my bits at? Points to Werner Vogels, Amazon cloud CEO, saying that questions about cloud security and privacy was "fearmongering". Wrote a paper about threats of clouds and decided on a Pink Floyd album name - " Obscured by Clouds ". And on the day they published, the Snowden disclosures began.
Q: how different is eg Facebook privacy from any consent form eg for an operation? And which are the best countries for data privacy? A: European concept of data protection differs from medical consent.. And we don't know which laws work best - that would need empirical analysis which we don't have because of lack of transparency- you can't ask secret services what they're doing; they're called 'secret' for a reason. And ideas of computer security differs in law between eg UK and Spain - one is precise, one is abstract.
Quoting EU digital agenda data: economy means it's about infrastructure. His argument seems to be that Europe needs to design its own cloud infrastructure. Points to article about " Google knows nearly every Wi-Fi password in the world ". The implication being that Europeans need to roll their own. Points to "made in Germany" email services.
Points to survey of EU police authorities and various hacking strategies eg man-in-middle, DNS poisoning - where many refused to say if they were using particular tactics at all. Mentions Guardian article from last Friday on data protection law changes. He isn't particularly hopeful that EU changes to data protection will be much of an improvement. Hedged around with phrases like "having regard to the state of the art and the cost of implementation".
Mentioned previously, the full report is here. Updated at Forgo goes into article 8 of EU privacy law - covering data: "It's a very general and broad clause. But he points to article 2: that data needs to be processed fairly for "specified purposes"' He points out that this goes against some big data uses. At least, if you do it without permission. It is illegal if you don't have informed consent, or some other legitimate use. Facebook conditions says "We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with. This helps us keep our community safe.
Forgo: "In Europe we'd probably say 'illegal' not 'uncool'. That's remarkable that as many as 10 actually got that far. Facebook's full use data policy is scrolling past quite quickly: "it takes about a minute". Europeans would say that "including" - which is in the first sentence in the FB terms - isn't sufficient: that you need to specify what you're actually going to collect and what you're going to do with it. Points out that this stuff is all too vague: "Sometimes we get data We also put together data from the information we already have about you and your friends We may access, preserve and share your information in response to a legal request Says that we're living in "interesting times" which isn't actually a Chinese curse, but serves well enough.
Convert currency. Add to Basket. Compare all 4 new copies. Condition: New. Language: German. Brand new Book. Taschenbuch Berliner Ausgabe, , 4. Seller Inventory APC More information about this seller Contact this seller. New Book. Shipped from US within 10 to 14 business days. Established seller since Seller Inventory IQ