Mediaboss Marketing

Russian President Vladimir Putinbelieves Edward Snowdens decisionto leaktop-secret information from the National Security Agency was wrong.

Yet speaking in an interview with Oliver Stone for a series called The Putin Interviews,which airs onShowtime on June 12, the Russian president also defended Snowden, a former NSA contractor who is currently living in exile in Moscow.

Related: Putin slams Trump-Russia probe

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

As an ex-KGB agent, you must have hated what Snowden did with every fiber of your being? Stone asks Putin through a translator in a clip from the show.

"Snowden is not a traitor," Putin replies. "He didnt betray the interest of his country. Nor did he transfer any information to any other country which would have been pernicious to his own country or to his own people.

Still, the Russian president said he thought Snowden had other options.

I think he shouldnt have done it," Putin said.

If he didnt like anything at his work, he should have simply resigned. But he went further. Thats his right. But since you are asking me whether it's right or wrong, I think its wrong.

The four-part special from Stone will air a week after Putin's much publicized interview withNBC's Megyn Kelly and comes at a time when allegations continue to swirl that Russian intelligence meddled in the 2016 presidential election and possibly colluded with now-President Donald Trump.

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke to Oliver Stone for series called "The Putin Interviews." Dmitri Lovetsky/Pool/Reuters

During the interview with Stone, Putin also defended the actions of his own intelligence services.

"Our intelligence services always conform to the law," the Russian president said. "Thats the first thing. And secondly, trying to spy on your allies if you really consider them allies and not vassals is just indecent. Because it undermines trust. And it means that in the end it deals damage to your own national security."

Read more from the original source:
Vladimir Putin on Edward Snowden's NSA Leak: He Shouldn't Have Done It - Newsweek

National Security Agency analysts under the Obama administration improperly searched Americans' information, but the searches were conducted largely out of error, according to a review of publicly available intelligence documents reported on by Circa last week.

The website reported that Obama's NSA violated privacy protections by searching a subset of intelligence for Americans' information. The story draws in part from a partially declassified April 2017 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion, which says that the NSA repeatedly and inappropriately queried, or searched, "U.S. person identifiers" within a swath of data. The data was collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, meaning that it targeted a foreigner, on foreign soil, for a foreign intelligence purpose.

The NSA at the time was not allowed to search a chunk of intelligence, known as "upstream," using U.S. person identifiers (like an American's email address)but it did, and "with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed" to the FISC. Upstream data is obtained from "providers that control the telecommunications "backbone" over which telephone and Internet communications transit," according to an independent government oversight agency.

Of this, Circa wrote:

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person's identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA's own internal watchdog found that not to be true.

This sounds nefarious, especially against the backdrop of a months-long controversy over unmasking and leaks. But as Circa hints some paragraphs later, the incidents, which were self-reported by the NSA to Congress and the FISC, were in part the result of a system design quirk.

"The system automatically includes in a search all authorities an analyst's credentials permit the analyst to access," Adam Klein, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "That meant that analysts with access to upstream data had to opt out of querying upstream when setting their search criteria. That system design apparently resulted in non-compliant queries."

A January notice to the FISC also said that "human error was the primary factor" in a portion of these improper queries. The NSA in an announcement also claimed that the incidents were "not willful." And as Klein told TWS, "There have been no reported incidents of intentional misuse of Section 702 by the agencies responsible for implementing it."

The NSA inspector general report read:

For the queries into FAA 702 upstream data, SV concluded that analysts had not removed the FAA 702 upstream authority from their search criteria (that automatically defaulted on the basis of their credentials) or had not included the appropriate . . . limiters to prevent FAA 702 upstream data from being queried.

The NSA told the FISC about the incidents as the court conducted its annual review for 702 certifications. The non-compliance triggered a broader NSA review, and ultimately resulted in the agency declaring the end of "about" collectionor the gathering of communications that mention a target. "About" collection often scooped up entirely domestic communications, drawing the ire of civil liberties advocates. The NSA also announced that it would purge much of its upstream data, and the FISC gave the go-ahead for analysts to query upstream using U.S. person identifiers, now that "about" has ended.

The court's late March certification reflected that change. But the court was not pleased with the non-compliance. The FISC in October described it as "a very serious Fourth Amendment issue" and attributed the agency's delayed disclosure to "an institutional 'lack of candor.'"

Still, the incidentincluding the NSA's self-reporting and public announcementsexemplifies the extent of 702 oversight, Klein said.

"The program is subject to extensive oversight, including judicial supervision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The recent end of "about" collection in response to FISC oversight shows that it has real teeth," he said.

If you have questions about this fact check, or would like to submit a request for another fact check, email Jenna Lifhits at jlifhits@weeklystandard.com or The Weekly Standard at factcheck@weeklystandard.com.

More:
Fact Check: Why did the NSA breach privacy protections? - The Weekly Standard

(TNS) -- A group of Silicon Valley tech giants are urging Congress to reform National Security Agency authority that empowers the agency to potentially spy on millions of Americans incidentally while surveilling foreign targets.

Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter are among the 30 tech companies, trade groups, and lobbyists asking Congress to reform Section 702 of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act authority the agency uses to tap the physical infrastructure of the internet, such as undersea fiber cables, to surveil the content of foreigners emails, instant messages, and other communications as they exit and enter the U.S.

The law legalizes broad electronic surveillance programs like Prism, leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Privacy advocates say such incidental collection facilitates a loophole that lets NSA incidentally sweep up unrelated data belonging to Americans in the process, and likely amounts to millions of warrantless interceptions.

The legal authority underpinning such upstream surveillance expires in December, and lawmakers have already held hearings on the law a mixed bag of Republicans and Democrats support and oppose.

We are writing to express our support for reforms to Section 702 that would maintain its utility to the U.S. intelligence community while increasing the programs privacy protections and transparency, companies wrote to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

Instead of a blanket reauthorization companies asked lawmakers to require NSA to get court authorization before querying the contents of 702 material for the communications of U.S. persons (given that U.S. persons are not the target of 702).

Companies asked for legal permission to release more details about the requests for data they receive from the government, including the number and type of information requested and declassification of warrants granted in secret by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

They want Congress to curtail the definition of foreign intelligence information under FISA to reduce the likelihood of collecting data belonging to U.S. citizens not suspected of wrongdoing and codify a recent change to NSA policy ending so-called about collection.

In April, NSA ended the upstream practice of collecting Americans email and text messages exchanged with overseas users that simply mention search terms like an email address belonging to a target but isnt to or from a target.

Finally, there should be greater transparency around how the communications of U.S. persons that are incidentally collected under Section 702 are searched and used, including how often 702 databases are queried using identifiers that are tied to U.S. persons, the letter reads.

The law expires Dec. 31 and lawmakers still have not received an estimate from NSA on the number of Americans swept up in 702 surveillance. Oregon Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden has been asking NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the number since 2012, and recently renewed that request to Daniel Coats, President Donald Trumps director of national intelligence.

In a letter sent ahead of Coats nomination signed by Goodlatte, lawmakers asked for the number again, with Coats later pledging to do everything I can to work with Admiral Rogers in NSA to get you that number. In a later hearing after getting the job, Coats said quantifying the number was harder than he initially expected after meeting with Rogers, and asked for more time.

Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU Laws Brennan Center for Justice, says such incidental collection likely amounts to millions or tens of millions of warrantless interceptions.

While Goitein says she hasnt seen the authority abused (though Snowden disputes that), she and other advocates say they have seen the agencys mission creep, so that a law designed to protect against foreign threats to the United States has become a major source of warrantless access to Americans data and a tool for ordinary, domestic law enforcement.

Austin Carson, executive director of the center-right D.C. think tank TechFreedom says companies shouldnt have to fear their government is breaking that trust with their users.

These proposed reforms represent a good-faith compromise to one of the most significant issues Congress must resolve this year, Carson said of the letter. They would maintain important national security tools while minimizing the impact on Americans.

Carson said President Donald Trumps own concerns about his campaign coming under surveillance during the 2016 election and having campaign associates identities unmasked in intelligence community reports, along with the authoritys looming expiration, should fuel the argument for timely reform.

2017 InsideSources.com, Washington, D.C. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

See the original post here:
Facebook, Google Urge Congress to Reform NSA Surveillance - Government Technology

Health + Tech /02 Jun 2017

On December 23, 2016, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This in itself is nothing extraordinary. What came as a shock was the news that US Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) would be elevated to the unified command plan (UCP) as the fourth functional combatant command, pending review of CYBERCOMs efficacy by the Pentagon of course. The National Defense Authorization Act allocates $75 million a year to CYBERCOM for upkeep of current facilities, training of personnel, acquisition of hardware, and development and deployment of new programs.

Since its inception in 2009, CYBERCOM has occupied a unique position within the Department of Defense. On one hand, it was a subordinate combatant command of US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the same command responsible for military affairs in space and the nuclear arsenal. On the other hand, it has been and is still headed by the director of the National Security Agency, an intelligence organization separate from the conventional military hierarchy.

CYBERCOMs elevation is important for three reasons. First, as a part of the UCP (Unified Command Plan), the combatant commander (CCDR), Admiral Mike Rogers, can directly appeal to the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) and the President (POTUS). Second, Admiral Rogers has a seat at the table so to speak regarding budgeting decisions. Finally, the elevation of CYBERCOM into the UCP is symbolic. It is a signal of intent for both domestic and international audiences and indicates that the US considers cyber security a major aspect of national security and that it will continue to invest in its cyber capabilities in the future.

As significant as this elevation is, this is actually just the first step on the road to an independent CYBERCOM. Recall my mention of the NSA. There have been voices calling for the end of the dual-hat arrangement, most notably former President Obama, and these voices are growing louder. After all, if CYBERCOM can stand alone as a combatant command, perhaps it is ready to stand apart from the NSA. Ending the dual-hat arrangement would mean that Admiral Rogers would most likely lead CYBERCOM while a new director for the NSA is chosen, possibly a civilian, but that is a discussion for another time.

Initially, the dual-hat arrangement made sense. Simply put, CYBERCOM was a fetus incapable of surviving on its own without the constant nourishment of its mother and this arrangement was the umbilical cord. As a fledgling command, CYBERCOM lacked the funding, personnel, hardware, and leadership to operate effectively so command was given to Lt. General Alexander as a means of quickly bringing CYBERCOM to operational status.

Some are afraid that splitting the two organizations will lead to needless rivalry, competition for resources and authority, and a decline in overall cooperation between the two organizations. So why are others encouraging a split?

Like many issues in the DOD, its complicated and cannot be adequately covered in the length of one article, but those who advocate for the end of the dual-hat arrangement come generally in three flavors.

The first group maintains that CYBERCOM is mature enough to act without NSA input. These individuals argue that with adequate funding, CYBERCOM possesses the leadership and the groundwork for programs needed to operate independently. They seem to be in the minority. Even Admiral Rogers believes that CYBERCOM and the NSA should split eventually, but he stated explicitly that now is not that time.

The second group advocates for the split on functional grounds. The NSA is an intelligence agency that focuses on signals intelligence (SIGINT). CYBERCOM is a military organization with the mission to protect DOD information networks and conduct operations in cyberspace. Saying all operations done in cyberspace are the same is like saying that a firecracker, pistol, and cruise missile are the same because they are based on the same medium: gunpowder. A split is necessary to highlight the different functions of CYBERCOM and the NSA.

The final group seeks a split based on legal motives. CYBERCOM, and all military branches, take their authority from Title 10 of the federal regulations. Title 10 is what outlines the conditions and appropriate conducts of war; it tells the US military what powers it has and does not have.

The NSA is not a strictly military agency despite the fact that an admiral is its current director. Instead, as an intelligence agency, it gathers its authority from Title 50, the part of the federal regulations dealing in national defense and intelligence. The basic argument is that no individual should have command over so much of national security; thats too much power concentrated into one man. Having a clear separation of legal authority will keep both organizations more accountable.

Most experts in Washington are of the opinion that CYBERCOM needs its independence. The question is now a matter of time and method. When will CYBERCOM be mature enough to stand on its own legs? How will we know? What can we do to make the transition as smooth as possible? The elevation of CYBERCOM and its likely separation from the NSA will mark a new age in cyber security, recognition of its place as a combat discipline by the most powerful nation in the world.

Read more here:
Should CYBERCOM Split From the NSA? - International Policy Digest (press release) (blog)

English: Free software, roughly, is software that grants the four essentials freedoms to use, to study and modify, to copy and to redistribute itself for any purpose. The free software movement is a social movement to protect, for software users, the right of people to control their computers and to cooperate with others, when they choose, as part of a community. The movement was launched by the GNU project in 1983. Eesti: Vaba tarkvara on enam-vhem niisugune tarkvara, mis tuleb lhtekoodiga, mida saab muuta ja edasi jagada. Vaba tarkvara kogukond on sotsiaalne liikumine eesmrgiga toestada tarkvara kasutajatele inimeste igus kontrollida oma arvuteid ja teha teistega koostd, kui nad seda kogukonna osana soovivad. Liikumine algatati GNU projekti poolt 1983. aastal. Vaba tarkvara teatakse ka teiste terminite all, nagu "avatud lhtekoodiga tarkvara", "software libre", "FLOSS" ja "FOSS". Lisamrkuseks niipalju, et "vabavara" ei ole peaaegu kunagi "vaba tarkvara". Franais: Un logiciel libre est un logiciel dont l'utilisation, l'tude, la modification et la distributions sont garanties par une licence dite libre. Suomi: Vapaat ohjelmistot ovat tietokoneohjelmistoja, joiden mukana toimitetaan lhdekoodi jota voi muokata ja levitt eteenpin. Vapaiden ohjelmistojen liike pyrkii turvaamaan ohjelmistojen kyttjien oikeudet hallita tietokoneidensa toimintaa ja toimia yhteisn niin halutessaan. Liike sai alkunsa GNU-projektista vuonna 1983. Vapaisiin ohjelmistoihin viitataan mys nimill "avoimen lhdekoodin ohjelmisto", "FLOSS", "FOSS" ja "VALO". Huom! Freeware eli ilmaisohjelmat eivt melkein koskaan ole vapaita ohjelmistoja.

See the original post:
Category:Free software - Wikimedia Commons