Despite Growing Evidence of NSA's Omnipresence, State Dept. Hands Off 'Anti-Surveillance' Tech To Syrian Rebels

from the it's-the-thought-that-counts,-I-guess... dept

The government, at least some part of it, is out there trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, a very powerful and influential part of the government is currently entangled in a few decades' worth of doing the wrong thing. DJ Pangburn, writing for Vice, details the "stark irony" of the government (namely, the State Dept.) handing off "anti-surveillance" technology to Syrian rebels, as if completely unaware of the NSA's globetrotting surveillance efforts and attacks on anything that might keep data out of its hands.

Now, the US State Department, through the Office of Syrian Opposition Support (OSOS), is once again publicly touting its delivery of hardware and software solutions to Syrian rebels. In total, $25 million is being dumped into the Syrian revolution for this purpose via the State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization. State Department Internet Freedom Grants are also doled out to software developers interested in helping dissidents worldwide. And, according to Time magazine, the US is even teaching dissidents communication security by way of non-profits such as the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House...

The irony of the US government's anti-surveillance efforts in Syria, as it defends its NSA surveillance programs in the aftermath of Edward Snowden's leaks, should not be lost on anyone. But, hell, maybe we should be encouraged that at least some of the world's population should be free of Big Brother's prying eyes.

The government is too cursed with a career bureaucrat's lack of self-awareness to recognize the irony of its efforts. All that matters is that the paperwork's in order. "Snoop-proof" tech is being requisitioned with the left hand while the right hand installs backdoors before it's boxed up and shipped. The dissonance of this act would be jarring, except for the fact that the president himself claims he's getting most of his NSA info secondhand -- from the press rather than from security briefings. The government strives to be all things to all people but is prevented from rising above "useless" by the counterproductive desires of its internal masters.

The State Dept. wants to help but it's handing off equipment that may prevent the rebels' opposition from listening in, but won't keep the NSA out. That's the price you pay for foreign government handouts -- you're now allies and being friends means doing lots and lots of sharing. The US government wants those it supports to stay alive and healthy, and that means handing out technology that can't be easily subverted by its enemies. But if our intelligence agencies have left open holes to sneak their tendrils in (zero day exploits, for instance), then no technology is truly secure -- what can be exploited by us can be exploited by others.

Beyond these sharp contrasts lies a question that needs to at least be asked, never mind answered.

The main issue here is one of principle. How can the US government so publicly support anti-surveillance technologies abroad, while carrying out programs like the NSA's PRISM on a global scale?

No one wants to answer this question. No one who has sincerely offered anti-surveillance tech in the past wants to hear the answer. The answer means the efforts were meaningless.

The government can publicly support anti-surveillance abroad because it's listening to everyone. We're Good Guy America, handing out anti-snooping tech to our "allies," a relatively meaningless word as regime changes and shifting allegiances continually blur the line between friends and enemies. We're not completely evil. We want our guys to win.

And so we give them pre-compromised tech and a hearty thumbs-up. If one warring faction can keep another locked out of the communication loop, good for them. It's a small victory for that group in that location, entirely limited to that particular instance. Overall, it's a loss. Those we support can thwart their enemies, but not us. Not if we're handing out the tech. And if we listen in on our allies, who could blame us? After all, we set them up with tools, training and technology. The least they can do is allow us to pick up on the party line.

Filed Under: anti-surveillance tools, nsa, nsa surveillance, state department, syria

Feds Accused Of Distributing Malware That De-Anonymizes Tor Users

from the left-hand,-meet-the-anonymous-right-hand dept

It's somewhat well known that the popular Tor anonymous browsing system gets a significant amount of funding from the US government. In the past, the suggestion had always been that the State Department was a major supporter because of its belief that Tor would help dissidents in other countries communicate better via anonymous systems. However, now there's a lot of buzz because it appears that a bit of malware that was discovered this weekend targeting Tor users, may have come directly from the FBI itself. The implication isn't against the Tor project at all, but rather it appears that whoever pushed out this malware did so by using a vulnerability targreting people using the Tor Browser Bundle -- a Firefox bundle that builds in Tor -- browsing a variety of hidden sites (available only to Tor users) hosted by the somewhat infamous Freedom Hosting. Freedom Hosting's boss, Eric Eoin Marques was arrested in Ireland last week as the US is trying to extradite him. But, what was more interesting was what some people discovered on all Freedom Hosting pages:

Shortly after Marques' arrest last week, all of the hidden service sites hosted by Freedom Hosting began displaying a “Down for Maintenance” message. That included websites that had nothing to do with child pornography, such as the secure email provider TorMail.

Some visitors looking at the source code of the maintenance page realized that it included a hidden iframe tag that loaded a mysterious clump of Javascript code from a Verizon Business internet address located in eastern Virginia.

By midday Sunday, the code was being circulated and dissected all over the net. Mozilla confirmed the code exploits a critical memory management vulnerability in Firefox that was publicly reported on June 25, and is fixed in the latest version of the browser.

Though many older revisions of Firefox are vulnerable to that bug, the malware only targets Firefox 17 ESR, the version of Firefox that forms the basis of the Tor Browser Bundle – the easiest, most user-friendly package for using the Tor anonymity network.

So why do people think the feds are involved? The bit of malware scoops up various identifying information -- MAC address and Windows hostname -- and then sends it to a server in Virginia to find the real IP address of the computer in question. The Virginia server is controlled by the infamous contractor SAIC, who works with numerous government agencies.

It's no secret that law enforcement has wanted to identify folks who are trying to be anonymous. And, as discussed just last week, the FBI has been using malware at an increasing rate. So it wouldn't be a huge surprise to find out that little tricky bit of malware was designed to provide more info on Tor users who might be up to nefarious activity (or, you know, they might just want to surf anonymously). I imagine that this is not the end of this particular story...

Filed Under: eric eoin marques, fbi, government, malware, state department, tor
Companies: freedom hosting, saic

'Anti-Propaganda' Ban Repealed, Freeing State Dept. To Direct Its Broadcasting Arm At American Citizens

from the 'our-top-pre-approved-story-tonight...' dept

The US government has a bit of a PR problem at the moment, thanks to Ed Snowden's leaks and a decade-plus of general antipathy towards its constituents' rights and liberties growing out of its War on Terror.

Fortunately, the government now has a chance to aim its official version of today's news at US citizens, thanks to the repeal of a so-called "anti-propaganda" law earlier this month.

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.

The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970's when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of the BBG's broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department's efforts from the internal propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union.

Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years.

BBG spokesperson Lynne Weil says these efforts aren't simply pro-government hype machines.

"They don't shy away from stories that don't shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible, discussion, and open debate."

A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, Al-Shabaab or VOA Somalia."

As Weil points out, this will bring a new level of transparency to the BBG as communicating to Americans is no longer prohibited. If nothing else, transcripts of BBG programming will be easier for Americans to get ahold of. A court ruled in 1998 that the limitations of the Smith-Mundt Act exempted the Voice of America from releasing transcripts in response to FOIA requests.

Another possible plus is the fact that the BBG will provide a free, "local" news source for immigrant populations.

The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get Al-Shabaab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said.

These positives aside, the thought of a state-run news agency being allowed to direct its efforts at Americans is still uncomfortable. Despite claims of independence, it's hard to believe the source is 100% trustworthy when its stated purpose is to run flack for the State Department in foreign nations. (Of course, the mainstream media outlets haven't shown much reluctance to regurgitate talking points, which almost makes the BBG's efforts seem redundant.)

While the BBG may provide a less-biased source of news for many foreigners (or at least provide a different bias), the purpose of its broadcasts to its new American audience is less clear. The fact that the State Department is behind the effort doesn't do much to allay fears that the BBG will become a tool of domestic propaganda. The State Department's reaction to the leak of diplomatic correspondence by Wikileaks was to block its employees' access to the site (or any site containing the word "Wikileaks") and demand the digital documents be "returned." How will a state-run press react to developments like these? Will it be forced to play by the department's rules, no matter how illogical, or will it be able to deal with them in a more forthright manner?

In a time where the administration seems to be forced to play defense with increasing frequency, it's hard to believe it won't be willing to exploit this addition to its PR arsenal.

Filed Under: domestic propaganda, propaganda, state department, us government, voice of america

White House Believes Ed Snowden Shouldn't Have Any Free Speech Rights, Attacks Russia For Letting Him Speak

from the sickening dept

The White House's attacks on whistleblower Ed Snowden have already been pretty bad, but they took it up a notch in response to Ed Snowden's brief press conference with various human rights groups last week from the Moscow airport where he is stranded. There are all sorts of ways that the White House could have responded to this -- and it chose perhaps the worst. It sent out press secretary Jay Carney to scold Russia for allowing Ed Snowden to speak, claiming that it provided him a "propaganda platform."

The White House criticized Russia on Friday for allowing National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to meet with human rights activists, calling it a “propaganda platform” for the man who seeks to avoid prosecution for leaking classified information about secret U.S. electronic surveillance programs.

Think about that for a second. This is the US government, directly trying to shut up a US citizen, who has blown the whistle on various illegal secret surveillance programs. Part of the very basis for the US is supposed to be our support for the First Amendment, and the belief in free speech. That includes speech we don't like, in the belief that speech can be countered by other speech. But the US government seems to think that the First Amendment does not apply to people who criticize them.

“Providing a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden runs counter to the Russian government’s previous declarations of Russia’s neutrality and that they have no control over his presence in the airport,” Carney said. “It’s also incompatible with Russian assurances that they do not want Mr. Snowden to further damage U.S. interests.”

Frankly, the only one spewing propaganda here is Jay Carney and the administration, for claiming that merely allowing Snowden to speak is the equivalent of doing "further damage to U.S. interests." The problem, it seems, is that the White House seems to think that damage to their own reputation and future spying efforts is the equivalent of "damage to U.S. interests." But that's clearly ridiculous. Many in the American public feel that the real damage to U.S. interests was having this illegal and unconstitutional program in the first place.

And, it wasn't just a specific phraseology that Carney just happened to come up with on the spot. The State Department said nearly the same thing:

“We are disappointed that Russian officials and agencies facilitated this meeting today by allowing these activists and representatives into the Moscow airport’s transit zone to meet with Mr. Snowden despite the government’s declarations of Russia’s neutrality with respect to Mr. Snowden,” Psaki said. “Our concern here is that he’s been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform.”

When the US government is directly trying to silence the speech of an American citizen, and arguing that it's some sort of violation to let him give a pretty basic statement on how the US is persecuting him, is really sickening. What kind of country have we become when the federal government is directly trying to shut someone up like that?

Filed Under: ed snowden, free speech, jay carney, propaganda, russia, state department

State Dept. Spent $630,000 Buying Likes, But That Was Actually The Least Of Its Engagement Problem

from the and-honestly,-no-one-truly-'likes'-the-government-except-the-government dept

The release of a report from the Inspector General on the Bureau of Internal Information Programs (BIIP) brings with it the surprising news that the various agencies under its purview spent $630,000 pursuing Facebook "likes" in an attempt to increase their popularity. Normally, I would be setting the keyboard to "Mock Relentlessly," but this isn't so much a case of the government blowing tax dollars on stupid stuff as it is a case of using the wrong tool (bureaucracy) for the job (increasing engagement). That being said, it still means the money was ultimately wasted, but not in the "espresso machine in every cubicle" sort of way. (And there will probably be a little mocking.)

The Bureau of International Information Programs is supposed to be the leading edge for the State Department's public relations front, as John Hudson points out in his article for Foreign Policy.

The IG report stings -- especially because the Bureau of International Information and Programs is supposed to be Foggy Bottom's epicenter of online savvy. The bureau includes groovy-sounding divisions such as the Office of Innovative Engagement, which evangelizes on the "importance of using online engagement to drive offline, person-to-person activities and events." The bureau's stated mission is to be Foggy Bottom's "foreign-facing public diplomacy communications bureau" and supports its "growing social media community that numbers over 22 million followers."

An attempt to harness the power of social media through the bureaucratic interworking of 150 agencies is doomed from the start. It makes it very difficult to hone in on a clear strategy and avoid creating a disjointed, inconsistent mess. What makes it impossible is "leadership" that fails to meet even the laxest definition of the word. This is the first thing that greets readers of the report once they scroll past the introductory material, listed as the first item under "Key Judgements."

Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) leadership failed to convey its strategic vision to staff members, despite formalized communications. Leadership created an atmosphere of secrecy, suspicion, and uncertainty.

"Secrecy, suspicion and uncertainty" are certainly hallmarks of government leadership. It's never a good thing, but it's certainly much worse when the intended aim is to present a unified and engaging social media presence.

According to the report, first flagged by the Diplopundit, overlap and coordination issues trouble the various bureau's 150 social media accounts. The report also mentions a "pervasive perception of cronyism" exacerbating its already "serious morale problem."

Cronyism is also a hallmark of government leadership, common enough that this perception will likely never go away. And again, 150 social media accounts, steered by dozens of agencies with no clear guidance, is a recipe for public affairs disaster. Added to the stultifying mix of secrecy, suspicion, uncertainty and a "perception" of cronyism is the crippling banality of bureaucracy, something that takes a straightforward job and turns it into a soul-deadening morass where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing, but both have signed off on it -- in triplicate.

There is overlap and a lack of clarity in the functions and responsibilities between the Office of Web Engagement and the Office of Innovative Engagement. Staffing gaps in the latter, coupled with a 15-month vacancy in the director position, have left the office adrift and less able to play its role as the bureau's new technology pioneer.

An example of overlap is IIP's 20/100/100 program, which helps 20 embassies at a time raise their social media fan base by 100 percent in 100 days. At the conclusion of an embassy's participation in the program, its social media staff members frequently turn to the Office of Web Engagement rather than the Office of Innovative Engagement for advice. As the number of participating embassies rises with each round of the program, the advising function is shifting to the Office of Web Engagement, drawing staff members away from their primary duties.

The Inspector General does a marvelous job attempting to convey the relation and primary of two nearly identically named offices, but it's obvious the staff views the two as interchangeable. Logically, it would seem the Office of Web Engagement would cover, well, web engagement. The IG explains the distinction between the two, but it isn't so much an explanation as it is a statement of "This is for This." It also fails to clarify how an understaffed office that has run without a director for 15 months is supposed to handle the very important (to the BIIP, at least) social media functions.

The Office of Innovative Engagement is the proper place for this function for two reasons. First, its mandate is to keep up with the latest changes in social media rules and approaches. Second, it runs the Social Media Hub, the Department's primary repository of this information.

In summation, the Inspector General recommends "clarifying the roles, scope and responsibilities" of these two separate, but largely similar offices. It would seem a name change would go a long way towards clearing things up, or better yet, combining the two since everyone's used to going to the wrong place anyway. The staffing issue would be somewhat mitigated and there would actually be someone filling the director position.

As is to be expected from the preceding info, the Department's social media "strategy" seems to be the result of staffers being asked to hit targets (see the 20/100/100 program above) but given very little guidance on how to achieve these goals.

With the Department's use of social media comes strategic questions of the role, purpose, and limitations of the medium. A consensus is emerging that developing numbers of Facebook followers and Twitter fans may not lead automatically to target audience engagement...

The actual worth of a "Like" or a Twitter follower is still up for discussion, but you can go a long way towards negating the value of both by placing numbers ahead of engagement.

The bureau spent about $630,000 on the two campaigns and succeeded in increasing the fans of the English Facebook pages from about 100,000 to more than 2 million for each page. Advertising also helped increase interest in the foreign language pages; by March 2013, they ranged from 68,000 to more than 450,000 fans.

Much of this expense came in the form of paid post promotion, something Facebook makes almost mandatory if you're going to reach the maximum number of "fans." Then again, paying to push it to everyone's feed isn't a guarantee that it will be seen, much less engaged with. Paying for eyeballs also carries with it a faint hint of gaming the system, something both largely ineffective and somewhat morally suspect.

Many in the bureau criticize the advertising campaigns as "buying fans" who may have once clicked on an ad or "liked" a photo but have no real interest in the topic and have never engaged further...

IIP's four global thematic English-language Facebook pages had garnered more than 2.5 million fans each by mid-March 2013; the number actually engaging with each page was considerably smaller, with just over 2 percent "liking," sharing, or commenting on any item within the previous week. Engagement on each posting varied, and most of that interaction was in the form of "likes." Many postings had fewer than 100 comments or shares...

The Inspector notes that engagement is "a means, not an end." The true purpose of the State Departments social media presence is to "accomplish specific PD (Public Diplomacy) goals." This may be true, but if these offices are going to utilize social media, it's rather hard to achieve the "ends" without putting more thought and care into the "means." (Or, at the very least, some sort of unified front.)

Government entities face a much more uphill battle for hearts and minds than commercial entities, considering there's usually no end product to admire and no day-to-day presence in their lives. These entities also tend to view social media as a top-down structure from which they can dump press releases and photo ops onto the masses. This is not unlike government in general which, with the notable exception of campaign season, tends to operate in the same fashion.

If these departments are unwilling to engage on a level that actually feels like engagement to the public, chances are achieving "public diplomacy" goals via social media will be next to impossible. "Managing" this with a bureaucractic layers of redundancy only makes things worse. "Social media" isn't "regular media." It has little interest in regurgitating press releases and waiting around until government officials decide it's convenient to "address the media." The "macro" effort might benefit from committees and 68-point "Recommendations" directive, but the "micro" moves too quickly for that.

What the Inspector General found concerning the State Department and its use of social media is exactly what anyone should have expected to be discovered. The government is bureaucratic, something that meshes not at all with social media. Paying for "Likes" is the least of the State Department's social media problems. The largest problem is that what's detailed in this report is the natural state of many government entities and it's unlikely to be solved by rearranging the desks and issuing "clarifying" memos.

Filed Under: buying likes, engagement, likes, social media, state department, us government

Will The Next Secretary Of State Support Internet Freedom Or SOPA?

from the let's-hope-for-internet-freedom dept

Last week, we noted that one of Hollywood's favorite Congressional Reps., Howard Berman had lost his re-election bid (in part due to re-districting, putting him up against another incumbent). For years, Berman has been a go to guy for the entertainment industry looking to pass dubious copyright expansion bills. Berman used to run the "IP Subcommittee" of the Judiciary Committee -- which you would think is a major conflict of interest, since he (literally) represented part of Hollywood. Amusingly, when he moved on to head the Foreign Affairs Committee, the next line for the IP Subcommittee was Rep. Rick Boucher -- a noted copyright reform advocate. Magically, the Judiciary Committee made the IP Subcommittee disappear. When Boucher lost in the next election, and a maximalist was available again, magically the subcommittee reappeared.

Either way, as a bunch of sources have been reporting, now that Berman lost, he's on the short list of possible candidates to become the new Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton steps down early next year. While many had thought that John Kerry would take the position (which he wants), there is now concern that the administration won't want to take him out of the Senate, because his seat would likely flip to the Republicans (Scott Brown, who narrowly lost to Elizabeth Warren this time around). The other leading candidate, Susan Rice, (the US's ambassador to the UN) is in a world of controversy right now over the Benghazi situation. That leaves Berman as a top choice (though there are a few others).

However, considering that the State Department is a leading supporter of internet freedom principles. Hillary Clinton made internet freedom a key plank of her focus at the State Department. In fact, we heard from multiple sources that the internal view at the State Department was against SOPA because it would hurt internet freedom efforts abroad. Similarly, we heard that State Department pressure on the White House helped lead to the surprising decision by the administration to come out against SOPA.

While Berman is known for having a strong grasp of foreign affairs issues, his positions on internet freedom and copyright should make it clear that he's the wrong choice for Secretary of State. While people at State realized how problematic SOPA was, Berman was a co-sponsor of SOPA and continued to defend the bill to the end -- arguing that it would have no impact on free speech and insisting that copyright infringement is no different than theft. Berman was also the one who tried to get Hillary Clinton to speak out in favor of SOPA, and then misrepresented that the letter she sent concerning the relationship between copyright and free speech, meant that the State Department supported SOPA (when it did not).

Given all that, Demand Progress is asking people to sign a letter to the White House not to nominate Berman as a replacement for Clinton. It really seems like he is way too beholden to a particular industry to be the appropriate person for the State Department. Let him do what everyone expects, and pick up an entertainment industry lobbying job.

Filed Under: howard berman, internet freedom, secretary of state, sopa, state department

Court Says State Department Can Live In Fantasyland & Pretend Documents Leaked By Wikileaks Are Still Secret

from the head-in-sand-approach dept

We've talked about the problem in which classified documents that are leaked and widely available to the public are still considered classified by the government, even though the concept is ludicrous. It leads to absolutely ridiculous situations, such as government employees not being able to look at documents available on Wikileaks, even as everyone else in the world can easily log in and see them. Or the case (linked above) in which lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees weren't allowed to look at these documents -- which anyone else in the world can see -- which relate to their clients. Even the NY Times called this situation "absurd." And it is. In the business world, people commonly sign "non-disclosure agreements," but they're always considered null and void if that same information becomes public by other means. It's bizarre that the government doesn't recognize the same policy.

However, in a lawsuit we first discussed last year, where the ACLU sued the State Department for failing to declassify (under a FOIA request) documents that were already widely available on Wikileaks, a judge has ruled against the ACLU, and said that the documents remain classified. Once again, this is absurd. It's as if everyone is actively denying reality.

The ACLU relied on the part of the test that questions whether the disclosure of the information "reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national security." Seeing as anyone seeking to "damage" our national security can just surf over to Wikileaks, and has been able to do that for quite some time, you'd think that the ACLU's argument was pretty rock solid. Not according to the court (pdf and embedded below). The court seems to tapdance around the issue. It argues that the Court should "defer" to the judgment of the administration on this question, and that it's possible that the official release of these documents could impact national security. I don't buy it. Any official release is unlikely to have any different impact than the unofficial release. To argue that making those releases official has some sort of new "threat" involved just doesn't pass the laugh test.

What's most distressing about this is that it shows a government that is not dealing in reality, but is dealing in a fantasy land, where it pretends that if it sticks its fingers in its ears, and hands over its eyes, it can pretend that the documents, which are very, very public, are not at all public. I want a government that deals in reality and not fantasy. Unfortunately, with this situation, we have the reverse -- and, bizarrely, the courts are saying that an executive branch that lives in fantasyland is just fine.

Filed Under: classified, documents, public information, state department, wikileaks
Companies: aclu

With Wikileaks Releasing Syrian Emails, Will People Realize It's Not Just Targeting The US?

from the radical-transparency dept

One of the bizarre issues that came out after Wikileaks began releasing its treasure trove of US State Department cables, was this suggestion from the US government that Wikileaks was clearly an anti-US organization. However, as has been pointed out time and time again, it's not: it's an anti-secrecy organization. You can agree or disagree with that position, but the various attempts to brand Wikileaks and Julian Assange as particularly anti-American (and to even look to use Espionage Act claims against them) always seemed misguided. With the latest release of millions of Syrian government emails, it makes you wonder if those same people who were complaining about the organization being anti-American are now also complaining about it being "anti-Syrian."

Randomly, this can't be particularly surprising when, as we noted a few months ago, some hackers had worked out that a large number of high level government officials in Syria used 12345 as their email password.

Filed Under: julian assange, leaks, state department, syria
Companies: wikileaks

Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'

from the fascinating dept

So called "cybersecurity" and "intellectual property" are two very different issues, but it seems that politicians are realizing that they get further by screaming about "cybersecurity threats" than about "intellectual property infringement." The latest proposed appropriations bill for the State Department includes a role for a "coordinator for cyber issues" -- which is an awful title. However, snuck into the job description is the fact that this person will have to create a "naughty" list of countries who are "cybersecurity concerns." Okay, fair enough. Except, the bill goes on to define what constitutes a cybersecurity concern, noting that if this person determines that there has been a

"... pattern of incidents of cybercrime against the United States Government or United States persons, or that disrupt United States electronic commerce or otherwise negatively impact the trade or intellectual property interests of the United States....

This seems to suggest that the State Department can now shame entire countries claiming they're a "cybersecurity concern" if the reality is that their copyright enforcement efforts are more lax. With such a broad definition, it seems like just about any country could be blamed if they don't magically somehow stop the "negative impact" of file sharing.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, intellectual property, state department

Senator Leahy Wants To Give At Least $5 Million To State Department To 'Combat Piracy'

from the spread-the-money-around dept

Last week, we wrote about a proposal in Congress to give ICE (part of Homeland Security) at least another $10 million for the next year to continue its program of censoring websites in the name of "stopping piracy." Of course, when Congress and Hollywood get together, they never put all their eggs in just one basket. So, it should come as no surprise that in another appropriations bill, this time for the State Department, and put forth by Senator Patrick Leahy -- who also introduced PIPA -- there's another chunk of "anti-piracy" cash. The bill sets forth $899,600,000 for "civil judicial and security programs." But, amazingly, the only program that is specifically called out with a specific amount is to "combat piracy."

CIVILIAN JUDICIAL AND SECURITY PROGRAMS.—$899,600,000 for assistance for rule of law, justice, corrections, anti-crime, cyber crime, civilian police, and security sector reform programs, of which not less than $5,000,000 shall be made available to combat piracy of United States copyright materials, consistent with the requirements of section 688 (a) and (b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008

If you're curious about sections 688 (a) and (b) as mentioned in this bill, you can see them here. They just authorize the State Department to "provide training" to foreign judges and prosecutors on intellectual property law. That is, it's part of the US's official IP propaganda program to convince foreign judges and prosecutors that strict interpretations of IP laws are the only way to go.

A couple years ago, we wrote in more detail about how the State Department spends these funds, and it's not pretty. Basically, we send copyright maximalist lawyers to other countries -- countries that have their own copyright laws -- and tell judges and federal prosecutors there that they need to enforce US-style copyright maximalist laws.

I'm really not sure how that's an appropriate use of taxpayer money.

Filed Under: homeland security, ice, patrick leahy, pipa, propaganda, state department