Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The demand comes as the committee is trying to figure out who revealed Flynns identity during his phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December and who illegally leaked the classified contents of those calls to the news media.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Masking refers to the protection of identities of Americans who are inadvertently caught up in surveillance for example, of foreign individuals in the U.S. and is referred to as a minimization procedure.

Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-WA) made the request in a letter dated Mar. 15 addressed to Director of the National Security Agency Adm. Michael Rogers, FBI Director James Comey, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

As you know, the Committee has been very concerned regarding the purported unauthorized disclosures of classified information, particularly when they pertain to intelligence collection on, or related to, U.S. persons (USP). To take a prominent example, a January 12, 2017 article in a major newspaper was the first to claim that Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, [then President-Elect] Trumps choice for national security adviser . phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29.

Such stories would appear to contain the unauthorized disclosure of USP identities. This potential misuse is a key reason why the Intelligence Community (IC) has developed robust minimization procedures for the protection of USP information, including requiring the masking of USP identities in most circumstances, they wrote.

However, as recent news stories seem to illustrate, individuals talking to the media would appear to have wantonly disregarded these procedures, they added.

Thus, the leaders have requested all policies and/or procedures each agency uses to determine when to unmask and disseminate the identity of an American and the number of individuals who can approve an unmasking.

They are also asking for the total number of times any unmasked American identity was disseminated between June 2016 and January 2017. They are also asking for the names of those unmasked Americans who had their identities disseminated in response to requests from intelligence community agencies, law enforcement, or any senior Executive Branch officials during that timeframe, in relation to either Trump or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

They also want to know who requested any unmasking and dissemination of individuals related to Trump or Clinton and why.

If those answers are not produced by Friday, Nunes and Schiff will issue a subpoena for them, they said.

The committee is scheduled to question Rogers and Comey at a public hearing on Monday.

Here is the original post:
House Intel Leaders Ask FBI, CIA, NSA How Many Americans They 'Unmasked' - Breitbart News

A contentious piece of U.S. law giving the National Security Agency broad authority to spy on people overseas expires at the end of the year. Expect heated debate about the scope of U.S. surveillance law leading up to Dec. 31.

One major issue to watch involves the way the surveillance treats communications from U.S. residents. Critics say U.S. emails, texts, and chat logs -- potentially millions of them -- are caught up in surveillance authorized bySection 702of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

U.S. residents who communicate with foreign targets of the NSA surveillance have their data swept up in what the NSA calls "incidental" collection. The FBI can then search those communications, but it's unclear how often that happens.

A primer on Section 702:

Section 702 of FISA is the authorization the NSA needs to run programs like Prism and Upstream, revealed in 2013 by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. The U.S. intelligence community has called Section 702 surveillance its "most important tool" in its fight against terrorism, noted Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, during a March 1 congressional hearing.

Section 702 surveillance is "critical" in the U.S. governments fight against terrorism, added April Doss, a lawyer at the NSA for 13 years.

At the agency, "I had the opportunity to witness firsthand the critical importance of robust intelligence information in supporting U.S. troops and in detecting terrorist plans and intentions that threatened the safety of the U.S. and its allies," she said in testimony March 1.

In the Prism program, the NSA and FBI allegedly gained access to the servers of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other internet companies as a way to collect audio, video, emails, and other content.

Upstream collectionallegedly involved the NSA intercepting telephone and internet traffic by tapping internet cables and switches.

Under 702, FISA allows the U.S. attorney general and the director of national intelligence to authorize "the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information." The U.S.Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court reviews the targeting and minimization procedures adopted by the government and determines whether they comport with the statutory restrictions and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) says it conducts its surveillance with the "knowledge of the service provider," although several internet companies have denied cooperating with the NSA.

Doss and other defenders of Section 702 surveillance say that it's targeted, not so-called "bulk" surveillance. But the descriptions of both Prism and Upstream from the Snowden leaks and subsequent government descriptions suggest the surveillance is widespread. The intelligence community has long arguedthe legal definition of "bulk" surveillance is very specific.

The NSA also collected U.S. telephone records for several years under a separate program. The NSA and the FBI pointed to a different provision of FISA, Section 501, as authorization for the controversial metadata collection program. Congress curtailed the phone metadata collection program in the USA Freedom Act, passed in mid-2015.

Congress is certain to extend the surveillance authority in some form, even though many tech companies and privacy groups are pushing lawmakers to rein in the NSAs surveillance programs, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Most lawmakers see value in extending Section 702, although many Democrats and some Republicans have talked about ending or limiting the ability of the FBI and other intelligence agencies to search for U.S. communications swept up in the surveillance.

Given that Section 702 is one of the main authorizations for the NSA to conduct foreign surveillance, not even the most ardent privacy advocates believe Congress will let the provision expire.

Section 702 prohibits the NSA from targeting people inside the U.S., but the agency, in "incidental" collection, gathers information from U.S. residents who are communicating with the agencys overseas targets.

The law then allows the FBI and other intelligence agencies to search those U.S. communications for evidence of crimes, including crimes not connected to terrorism. Many digital rights groups, along with some lawmakers, want to end this so-called backdoor search of Section 702 records.

This collection of U.S. communications without a warrant is, "in a word, wrong," Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat, said during the March 1 hearing.

Details about the incidental collection are fuzzy. Going back to 2011, lawmakers have repeatedly asked for numbers of U.S. residents affected but have received no details from the ODNI.

In addition to the incidental collection of U.S. residents' communications, privacy advocates complain about an expansive surveillance of foreigners allowed under Section 702.

The provision allows the NSA to collect foreign intelligence information from "anyone" outside the U.S. not just suspected agents of foreign powers, said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Intelligence information" is also defined broadly, he said.

"Once you remove that, it's open season on many foreigners who pose no threat to U.S. national security," he added.

House members, in their March 1 hearing, talked little about the impact on people outside the U.S. At this point, it seems unlikely that U.S. lawmakers will limit the provisions foreign data collection.

Privacy advocates have an ace up their sleeves, however. Several privacy groups have encouraged the European Union to get involved in the debate and threaten to revoke Privacy Shield, the cross-Atlantic agreement that allows U.S. companies to handle EU residents'data, unless significant changes are made to 702.

The European Commission "has made it clear that it takes seriously its obligations to review the Privacy Shield Agreement," said Nathan White, senior legislative manager at Access Now, a digital rights group.

EU nations understand surveillance is can be necessary, but "surveillance must respect human rights," White added. "Surveillance doesnt trump human rights responsibilities."

The U.S. intelligence communitys surveillance programs have stirred up new controversies in recent weeks. In early March, President Donald Trump, in a series of tweets, accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower in New York City during the last presidential campaign.

While Trump has provided no evidence of the bombshell charge, it appears that the NSA intercepted some of his campaign staffers' communications when they talked to foreign surveillance targets. That type of surveillance would likely be authorized by Section 702.

A few days later, WikiLeaks published more than 8,700 documents that it says came from the CIA. The documents describe the spy agency's efforts to compromise iPhone, Android devices, smart TVs, automobile software, and major operating systems.

The CIA, however, runs separate surveillance programs from the NSA. CIA surveillance is supposed to be focused on specific foreign targets, as opposed to the widespread surveillance that the NSA does under the authority of Section 702. The CIA says it is "legally prohibited from conducting electronic surveillance targeting individuals here at home, including our fellow Americans."

Read more from the original source:
The NSA's foreign surveillance: 5 things to know - ITworld

Advanced computing experts at the National Security Agency and the Department of Energy are warning that China is "extremely likely" to take leadership in supercomputing as early as 2020, unless the U.S. acts quickly to increase spending.

China's supercomputing advances are not only putting national security at risk, but also U.S. leadership in high-tech manufacturing. If China succeeds, it may "undermine profitable parts of the U.S. economy," according to a report titled U.S. Leadership in High Performance Computing by HPC technical experts at the NSA, the DOE, the National Science Foundation and other agencies.

"To maintain U.S. leadership in HPC," the report says, "a surge" of U.S. "investment and action is needed to address HPC priorities."

Concern about China's technical advances have been raised before by U.S. scientists and industry groups, but never in such striking terms -- or by representatives of a spy agency.

The report stems from a workshop held in September that was attended by 60 people, many scientists, 40 of whom work in government, with the balance representing industry and academia. The report, which summarizes that meeting, was just posted online.

The threat from China is so acute that "absent aggressive action by the U.S. -- the U.S. will lose leadership and not control its own future in HPC," the report states.

Indeed, the report says that "assuming status quo conditions, the meeting participants believe that a change in HPC leadership was extremely likely, with only minor disagreement on the timescale; many suggested that China would be leading the U.S. as early as 2020."

China supercomputing systems have been leading the Top 500 list, the global ranking of supercomputers, for several years. But that's not a measure of supercomputing leadership alone.

One workshop attendee, Paul Messina, a computer scientist and distinguished fellow at Argonne National Labs and the head of its Exascale Computing Project, sketched out the HPC leadership criteria: It means leadership in producing and using systems, as well as "first mover advantage." It also means staying in the lead at all times. The U.S. needs to control its HPC destiny and "can't depend on other countries to sell us what we need," he said in an email.

Something to keep in mind is that this report was written at a time when many assumed that supercomputing funding was not under threat. The report calls for more spending while the Trump administration, along with the Republican-controlled Congress, is planning major cuts in the federal budget.

"National security requires the best computing available, and loss of leadership in HPC will severely compromise our national security," the report says. "Loss of leadership in HPC could significantly reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrence and the sophistication of our future weapons systems."

Among those at the meeting was Barry Bolding, a senior vice president and chief strategy officer at supercomputer company Cray. "I will say from Cray's view, [the report] accurately reflects the discussion of the workshop and mostly accurately reflects some of our primary concerns regarding HPC competitiveness."

Steve Conway, an HPC analyst and research vice president at Hyperion Research, said the meeting "and report are important for alerting the U.S. HPC community, especially government officials, to the dangers of taking U.S. HPC leadership for granted when other nations, particularly China, are intent on seizing global leadership of the market for supercomputers."

The report makes three overarching observations about China's Sunway TaihuLight system, which at 93 petaflops, is ranked first on the Top500 list of supercomputers.

The TaihuLight supercomputer is "homegrown," and includes processors that were designed and fabricated in China. The Chinese chip design "includes architectural innovations," and was designed using "a true co-design approach" where the applications are tuned to take advantage of the chip design, the report said.

The machine "is not a stunt," the report notes, meaning China didn't develop this system for bragging rights. The machine "is being used for cutting edge research," and three of the six finalists for the Gordon Bell Prize, the top research award in HPC, were the result of Chinese efforts.

The report offers something particularly insightful about China's motivations.

"Meeting participants, especially those from industry, noted that it can be easy for Americans to draw the wrong conclusions about what HPC investments by China mean without considering China's motivations," the report states.

"These participants stressed that their personal interactions with Chinese researchers and at supercomputing centers showed a mindset where computing is first and foremost a strategic capability for improving the country; for pulling a billion people out of poverty; for supporting companies that are looking to build better products, or bridges, or rail networks; for transitioning away from a role as a low-cost manufacturer for the world; for enabling the economy to move from 'Made in China' to 'Made by China,' " the report states.

But it also pointed out that the computer codes developed for industry, "are good proxies for the tools needed to design many different weapons systems."

Read more here:
NSA, DOE say China's supercomputing advances put US at risk - Computerworld

As I mentioned when The Queue launched, although typically I will answer questions from readers, sometimes I'll switch that around and ask readers a question. I haven't done so since that initial column, so it's overdue. I recently asked two related questions at LinuxQuestions.org and the response was overwhelming. Let's see how the Opensource.com community answers both questions, and how those responses compare and contrast to those on LQ.

The first question I asked the LinuxQuestions.org community is: What are the reasons you use Linux?

oldwierdal: I use Linux because it is fast, safe, and reliable. With contributors from all over the world, it has become, perhaps, the most advanced and innovative software available. And, here is the icing on the red-velvet cake; It is free!

Timothy Miller: I started using it because it was free as in beer and I was poor so couldn't afford to keep buying new Windows licenses.

ondoho: Because it's a global community effort, self-governed grassroot operating system. Because it's free in every sense. Because there's good reason to trust in it.

joham34: Stable, free, safe, runs in low specs PCs, nice support community, little to no danger for viruses.

Ook: I use Linux because it just works, something Windows never did well for me. I don't have to waste time and money getting it going and keeping it going.

rhamel: I am very concerned about the loss of privacy as a whole on the internet. I recognize that compromises have to be made between privacy and convenience. I may be fooling myself but I think Linux gives me at least the possibility of some measure of privacy.

educateme: I use Linux because of the open-minded, learning-hungry, passionately helpful community. And, it's free.

colinetsegers: Why I use Linux? There's not only one reason. In short I would say:

bamunds: Because I love freedom.

cecilskinner1989: I use linux for two reasons: stability and privacy.

The second questions is, more broadly: What are the reasons you use open source software? You'll notice that, although there is a fair amount of overlap here, the general tone is different, with some sentiments receiving more emphasis, and others less.

robert leleu: Warm and cooperative atmosphere is the main reason of my addiction to open source.

cjturner: Open Source is an answer to the Pareto Principle as applied to Applications; OOTB, a software package ends up meeting 80% of your requirements, and you have to get the other 20% done. Open Source gives you a mechanism and a community to share this burden, putting your own effort (if you have the skills) or money into your high-priority requirements.

Timothy Miller: I like the knowledge that I can examine the source code to verify that the software is secure if I so choose.

teckk: There are no burdensome licensing requirements or DRM and it's available to everyone.

rokytnji: Beer money. Motorcycle parts. Grandkids birthday presents.

timl: Privacy is impossible without free software

hazel: I like the philosophy of free software, but I wouldn't use it just for philosophical reasons if Linux was a bad OS. I use Linux because I love Linux, and because you can get it for free as in free beer. The fact that it's also free as in free speech is a bonus, because it makes me feel good about using it. But if I find that a piece of hardware on my machine needs proprietary firmware, I'll use proprietary firmware.

lm8: I use open source software because I don't have to worry about it going obsolete when a company goes out of business or decides to stop supporting it. I can continue to update and maintain the software myself. I can also customize it if the software does almost everything I want, but it would be nice to have a few more features. I also like open source because I can share my favorite programs with friend and coworkers.

donguitar: Because it empowers me and enables me to empower others.

So, what are the reasons you use Linux? What are the reasons you use open source software? Let us know in the comments.

Lastly, what questions would you like to see answered in a future article? From questions on building and maintaining communities, to what you'd like to know about contributing to an open source project, to questions more technical in naturesubmit your Linux and open source questions.

See the article here:
Why do you use Linux and open source software? - Opensource.com

The Florida Senate passed a measure this weekthat would strengthen the states so-called stand-your-ground law, shifting the burden of proof from defense attorneys to prosecutors in pretrial immunity hearings.

The controversial changes to the states self-defense law passed the Senate 23 to 15 along party lines. It wasthe subject of heated debate between proponents, who argued that it correctly forces prosecutors to prove why the law should not apply to a defendant, and opponents, who said it will effectively force two trials, doubling the workload and making it more difficult to getwitnesses to testify.

The House is expected to vote on the measure next week, and Gov. Rick Scott (R) is expected to sign it. His office did not respond to a request for comment.

If you exercise a God-given right, the right of self-defense, you dont have the same rights as everybody else. Youre not innocent until proven guilty, said Marion Hammer, a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association in Florida. Thats wrong. Thats what needs to be fixed.

The current Florida law allows residents to use force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe that their lives are in danger or they risk bodily harm. The law saysthey have no duty to retreat. Defendants can claim immunity under the lawbut must provide evidence to prove their case. Under the bill passed this week, prosecutors would have to prove why a person should not be granted immunity from the crime. The law applies not only to shootings, but also to misdemeanors,domestic violence andassault cases that dont involve guns.

The measure passed this week has been vehemently opposed by the states prosecutors, who said it will further strap an already strained system and deter witnesses in sensitive cases from testifying.

This is an anti-law enforcement bill. Its saying they dont trust law enforcement either at the arresting stage or filing stage or state attorney, that we dont understand a self-defense case, said Phil Archer, the state attorney for Brevard and Seminole counties.

Archer, who said he is a member of the NRA and teaches self-defense, including stand your ground, said his office had four stand-your-ground cases last year. Should the bill pass, he expects the number to rise tofour thousand. He said it would be malpractice for a defense attorney not to request an immunityhearing in any case in which self-defense is claimed, because the burden of proof would rest with the prosecution.

There will now be two complete trials, Archer said. In every one of those cases, witnesses are going to have to take more time off work. Police officers who should be out on the street keeping us safe will now be in court, for what?

Hammer said that if the authorities do their job before they arrest and charge theyll only have to do it once because the bad cases will get dismissed.

The law isopposed by the Florida State Conference of NAACP Branches.

Shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors increases the potential of denying justice to victims and their families. These laws are often applied in a racially biased manner, they do not deter crime, and the bottom line is that they make it easier for people to murder other human beings and not face any legal consequence, said Adora Obi Nweze, the groups president.

The state became the first in the nation to pass a stand-your-ground law in 2005; 34 states now have such legislation on the books, according to the American Bar Association. Floridas self-defense laws came under scrutiny in 2012, when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, in Sanford. Zimmermans attorney did not raise a stand-your-ground defense at trial. He was acquitted by a jury.

[Was the Stand Your Ground law the cause of Trayvon Martins death?]

Gun-control groupsare continuing to fight the measure, urging Floridians to call legislators and oppose the bill. Lucy McBath, whose 17-year-old son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed in a Florida gas station parking lot for playing loud music, said the legislature has ignored senseless killings like those of Davis and Martin.

The law has returned to the spotlight in recent weeks during the trial of retired Tampa police captain Curtis Reeves, who shot a man at a movie theater in 2014 over a disagreement about a cellphone. A judge denied immunity to Reeves, who will now stand trial for murder.

Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said stand your ground has been a long-standing legal principle to justify the use of deadly force, but Floridasmeasure would give special weight to defendants including, he argues, gun defendants.

This new revised stand-your-ground law may really inhibit the proper functioning of the judicial system, he said. No other criminal defendant gets the benefit of a trial before a trial, a trial to see if they can go on trial.

Link:
Florida moves to bolster its 'stand-your-ground' law - Washington Post