The Real Threat To US Supporters In Afghanistan May Be The US-Funded Biometric Database Compiled By Their Former Government

from the and-it-may-have-been-compromised-well-before-the-Taliban-took-over dept

American armed forces entered Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago, bringing with them weapons, vehicles, and a vast amount of war tech. After 20 years, we're finally out of Afghanistan, but much of what the US military brought to the country has been left behind.

Obviously, the best way to prevent this eventual outcome was no longer an option after October 7, 2001. Clean exits are impossible. The solution is to never enter. What was left behind to be used by the Afghanistan military (or simply because it was logistically impossible to remove) is now mostly in the hands of the Taliban.

As was reported earlier, devices used for the collection of biometric data are now possessed by the Taliban. Originally tasked with collecting data to be used to recognize and track insurgents and terrorists, the devices' purpose expanded to include friendly locals who worked with the US military to help it identify and hunt down insurgents and terrorists.

The devices themselves may be of limited value, at least in terms of containing data the Taliban can use to identify local allies of the now-departed US military. That's according to this new report from MIT Technology Review.

As the Taliban swept through Afghanistan in mid-August, declaring the end of two decades of war, reports quickly circulated that they had also captured US military biometric devices used to collect data such as iris scans, fingerprints, and facial images. Some feared that the machines, known as HIIDE, could be used to help identify Afghans who had supported coalition forces.

According to experts speaking to MIT Technology Review, however, these devices actually provide only limited access to biometric data, which is held remotely on secure servers.

Good news? Well, maybe if the Taliban's intel acquisition plans were limited to whatever it can recover from these biometric scanners. Unfortunately, a whole lot more information on Afghan residents who aided the US and/or fought the Taliban is contained in Afghan government databases, some of which were constructed with the US government's help. Those are almost certainly already in the Taliban's control.

MIT Technology Review spoke to two individuals familiar with one of these systems, a US-funded database known as APPS, the Afghan Personnel and Pay System. Used by both the Afghan Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defense to pay the national army and police, it is arguably the most sensitive system of its kind in the country, going into extreme levels of detail about security personnel and their extended networks.

A rough equivalent of the US government's Office of Personnel Management, the database was created to cut down on fraud by collecting verifiable info on Afghanistan military members, gradually reducing the number of paychecks issued to nonexistent soldiers. But the database contains far more information than the OPM's stash.

[I]t also contains details on the individuals’ military specialty and career trajectory, as well as sensitive relational data such as the names of their father, uncles, and grandfathers, as well as the names of the two tribal elders per recruit who served as guarantors for their enlistment.

The Tablian's possession of this information doesn't just threaten the lives of soldiers who fought against the Taliban during the war, but their extended families. A lot of this is tied to biometric markers that can't be altered (or at least not altered easily or painlessly) like fingerprints and retina scans. Adding the biometric scanners to access to government databases is a potent combination. While the biometric scanners may not allow the Taliban to connect to US-controlled servers containing sensitive info, they can be used to collect more biometric data, which the Taliban can then attempt to match to records contained in this comprehensive database.

If there's a silver lining, it's that this database is, like a lot of things created by huge bureaucracies, kind of lousy.

Ultimately, some experts say the fact that Afghan government databases were not very interoperable may actually be a saving grace if the Taliban do try to use the data. “I suspect that the APPS still doesn’t work that well, which is probably a good thing in light of recent events,” said Dan Grazier, a veteran who works at watchdog group the Project on Government Oversight, by email.

This, too, was an inevitability of the extended conflict. Governments and their militaries are extremely interested in both their allies and their enemies. Amassing vast amounts of data was always going to be the answer. But this is how everything ends when a war effort ends in a loss after 20 years. The bad guys get all the stuff the good guys left behind. And in this day and age, the most powerful tools are portable, electronic, and bursting with information that makes it so much easier to mop up what's left of the resistance.

Filed Under: afghanistan, biometrics, surveillance, taliban, us

Sensitive Data On Afghan Allies Collected By The US Military Is Now In The Hands Of The Taliban

from the fuck-those-helpful-guys,-I-guess dept

The problem with harvesting reams of sensitive data is that it presents a very tempting target for malicious hackers, enemy governments, and other wrongdoers. That hasn't prevented anyone from collecting and storing all of this data, secure only in the knowledge this security will ultimately be breached.

Hack after hack after hack after hack has shown entities seem to be far more interested in collecting data than protecting data. While steps are undoubtedly taken to protect the info gathered by government agencies and numerous super-snoopy private companies, sooner or later they're never enough. It's not that these data collections are always unnecessary. It's that a breach is pretty much inevitable. And yet that inevitability almost always gets greeted as a surprise by those on the end of a malicious hacking.

What's happening in Afghanistan isn't exactly unprecedented. We saw the same thing happen when the United States military pulled out of Vietnam. The enemies that the US presence was supposed to deter were completely undeterred by local military (one we were supposed to be training to be self-reliant) left behind. We have exited one of our Forever Wars and the Taliban -- proud supporters of Al-Qaeda -- is taking over.

The Taliban is getting everything we left behind. It's not just guns, gear, and aircraft. It's the massive biometric collections we amassed while serving as armed ambassadors of goodwill. The stuff the US government compiled to track its allies are now handy repositories that will allow the Taliban to hunt down its enemies. Ken Klippenstein and Sara Sirota have more details for The Intercept.

The devices, known as HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment, were seized last week during the Taliban’s offensive, according to a Joint Special Operations Command official and three former U.S. military personnel, all of whom worried that sensitive data they contain could be used by the Taliban. HIIDE devices contain identifying biometric data such as iris scans and fingerprints, as well as biographical information, and are used to access large centralized databases. It’s unclear how much of the U.S. military’s biometric database on the Afghan population has been compromised.

At first, it might seem that this will only allow the Taliban to high-five each other for making the US government's shit list. But it wasn't just used to track terrorists. It was used to track allies.

While billed by the U.S. military as a means of tracking terrorists and other insurgents, biometric data on Afghans who assisted the U.S. was also widely collected and used in identification cards, sources said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency that oversaw these data collections understandably had no comment. I mean, what could it say? That this wasn't an inevitability? That pulling out of a country means taking all your stuff with you, including tons of data that won't even need to be exfiltrated to end up in enemy hands?

And even as the fall of Afghanistan appeared to be the inevitable outcome of leaving the country, the US government was trying to add to the pile of sensitive data now in the Taliban's possession.

[A] recent job posting by a State Department contractor sought to recruit a biometric technician with experience using HIIDE and other similar equipment to help vet personnel and enroll local Afghans seeking employment at U.S. embassies and consulates.

To claim this couldn't be foreseen is ridiculous. Decades of propping up the Afghanistan government didn't make the area any more stable. The never-ending War on Terror ensured tons of sensitive data would be compiled, especially in countries where US-based constitutional rights don't apply. Pulling out may have been the right thing to do, but abandoning devices containing data on local allies and supporters is insane. Our government has had more than 200 years of practice. The people who helped us during our many years of ineffective occupation can now be targeted with ease. That should never be considered acceptable. Operational security shouldn't just protect the highest and mightiest in the US government. It should protect everyone the government relies on, including nationals abandoned by a government that had every opportunity to mitigate collateral damage.

Filed Under: afghanistan, data, sensitive data, surveillance, taliban, us military

Taliban Creates A New Content Moderation Challenge For Social Media

from the but-what's-their-opinion-on-section-230 dept

The news out of Afghanistan is distressing on many levels, and it's bizarre to think that there's a Techdirt relevant story there, but (unfortunately) it seems like every story these days has some element of content moderation questions baked in. As the Taliban took over the country, it seems that they had a bone to pick... with Facebook. Facebook has banned the Taliban for a while, and has said that it will continue to do so, even as it takes over running the country of Afghanistan. And, the Taliban seem... pretty upset about it.

THE TALIBAN SPOKESMAN, Zabihullah Mujahid, emerged from the shadows on Tuesday and devoted part of his first press conference to a rant about Facebook, in which he accused the tech giant of violating the Islamist group’s right to free speech by banning them from all its platforms....

[....]

Journalists, Mujahid suggested, should ask people at Facebook “who are claiming to be promoters of freedom of speech,” why the Islamist movement that seized power from Afghanistan’s elected government is banned from posting on any Facebook-owned platform, including Instagram and WhatsApp.

Yeah, so, I didn't think I'd be lecturing the Taliban on how freedom of speech works, but this is not that. Of course, the Taliban is not exactly associated with supporting a "right to free speech," so this is already bizarre. But, more to the point, as we've addressed at length, no private company owes anyone the right to use their website. That's just not how it works.

That said, it is interesting to see just how the various social media platforms are now struggling with the question of how to deal with the Taliban wanting to use their platform. Even if they were banned before for being a terrorist group, does that change when they're the running the country?

So far, Facebook and YouTube have said that the Taliban are banned from their platforms, per US sanctions policies. Twitter does not have a ban but told Recode that it takes down individual pieces of violent content. Eventually, though, more social media companies could start relaxing their rules on the Taliban, if the group gains legitimacy in the international community, experts say.

However, as the Washington Post noted in an article, Taliban supporters have become increasingly sophisticated in using social media in ways that abide by the platforms' rules to avoid getting banned for policy violations:

In accounts swelling across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram — and in group chats on apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram — the messaging from Taliban supporters typically challenges the West’s dominant image of the group as intolerant, vicious and bent on revenge, while staying within the evolving boundaries of taste and content that tech companies use to police user behavior.

The tactics overall show such a high degree of skill that analysts believe at least one public relations firm is advising the Taliban on how to push key themes, amplify messages across platforms and create potentially viral images and video snippets — much like corporate and political campaigns do across the world.

And, of course, all this really does is (once again) highlight the impossibility of doing content moderation well at scale. Groups that some deem as terrorists, others (including themselves) will often declare to be freedom fighters. And, of course, it gets tricky if you just rely on the US government's designations as well -- after all the US had Nelson Mandela listed as a terrorist until 2008. That's not to compare Mandela to the Taliban, but to note that official designations are fraught with tricky questions as well.

But this is also why various websites should have a pretty free hand in determining their own moderation policies, rather than having any government tell them who is and who is not allowed to be on any platform.

Filed Under: afghanistan, content moderation, free speech, taliban
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

White House Accidentally Reveals CIA's Top Spy In Afghanistan

from the and-snowden-is-the-problem? dept

For all the exaggerated talk of how much "damage" Ed Snowden has done, he hasn't actually revealed the names of any spies or put them in any danger. No, that's the White House's job. An apparent slip-up meant that the White House distributed a list of people at a press briefing in Afghanistan that clearly identified the CIA's top spy in the country.

The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.

The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.

Perhaps even more incredible is that, at first, the White House denied there was a problem with the list, until someone apparently figured out what happened:

In this case, the pool report was filed by Washington Post White House bureau chief Scott Wilson. Wilson said he had copied the list from the e-mail provided by White House press officials. He sent his pool report to the press officials, who then distributed it to a list of more than 6,000 recipients.

Wilson said that after the report was distributed, he noticed the unusual reference to the station chief and asked White House press officials in Afghanistan whether they had intended to include that name.

Initially, the press office raised no objection, apparently because military officials had provided the list to distribute to news organizations. But senior White House officials realized the mistake and scrambled to issue an updated list without the CIA officer’s name. The mistake, however, already was being noted on Twitter, although without the station chief’s name.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the guy who blew the whistle on the CIA's waterboarding program is sitting in jail for "revealing" a CIA agent's name, when he actually did much, much less (simply confirming to a reporter the name of someone that reporter might want to talk to about a story). But, as double standards tend to go, I would imagine no one will be going to jail over this much more serious leak. After all, whoever fucked up and put it in the list probably hasn't blown the whistle on a program like the US torturing people.

Obviously, mistakes happen, but it's fairly incredible how the same people will brush off "mistakes" like this one, while going absolutely crazy over claims that John Kiriakou or Thomas Drake or Ed Snowden somehow caused a tremendous amount of "harm" despite no evidence to actually support those claims.

Filed Under: afghanistan, cia, defense department, dod, ed snowden, john kiriakou, leaks, press office, thomas drake, white house

US Admits It Secretly Built Similar Twitter-Like Services For Lots Of Countries

from the because-usaid dept

Following the revelations that the US had secretly attempted to build a Twitter-like service in Cuba, the US government has now admitted that it has tried to do the same thing in a bunch of different countries, some with more success than others. According to the NY Times:

The United States built Twitter-like social media programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, like one in Cuba, that were aimed at encouraging open political discussion, Obama administration officials said Friday. But like the program in Cuba, which was widely ridiculed when it became public this month, the services in Pakistan and Afghanistan shut down after they ran out of money because the administration could not make them self-sustaining.

In all three cases, American officials appeared to lack a long-term strategy for the programs beyond providing money to start them.

Administration officials also said Friday that there had been similar programs in dozens of other countries, including a Yes Youth Can project in Kenya that was still active.

While you can see the appeal of better helping citizens in these countries communicate with each other, the secrecy concerning who is behind them is where it gets troubling. As the case in Cuba with ZunZuneo, we noted that this helps legitimize every crackpot theory about how various programs are really US government fronts.

In fact, as you read the details of these programs, many of them do appear to have been set up with perfectly noble intentions, to help people better communicate and share ideas. But having the US government behind them -- especially given all of the recent revelations about US surveillance -- completely undermines that intent. Furthermore, it really doesn't seem like any of these services have had much of an impact at all. Instead, in all of the cases where we've heard of social networking services having any impact, they're when citizens of a country adopt existing services, like Twitter and Facebook, rather than these specialized "local" services.

Filed Under: afghanistan, communications, cuba, kenya, pakistan, social media, state department, surveillance, usaid
Companies: yes youth can, zunzuneo

Kiwi Three Strikes Tribunal Fines Soldier Who Was Serving In Afghanistan When Infringement Happened

from the manifestly-unjust dept

G Thompson was the first of a few of you to send in this story about the latest "three strikes" Tribunal hearing in New Zealand, in which the Tribunal ruled against a guy, despite the fact that he was a soldier in the NZ Armed Forces and deployed in Afghanistan at the time the various accusations of infringement occurred. Upon getting the third strike, having just returned from his tour of duty, he sent the tribunal a letter, noting that it was impossible for him to determine who had actually infringed, as he was away fighting for the country and there had been a number of flatmates in the place during the time of the accusations, such that it could have been any one (or multiple ones) of them downloading infringing material. Still, he agreed to "accept responsibility" because it was his account. That's an honorable thing to do, though it's simply ridiculous that he should have to do that, since he is clearly not at fault.

I have just returned from deployment overseas [in] Afghanistan and was not aware of music being downloaded. It is very difficult to determine who in the household is responsible for downloading music as flatmates are currently deployed around NZ.

However I understand entirely that I am the person who is held liable for these actions. I have spoken to the pers [sic] who have access to my internet IP address, and between 8 pers, we cannot determine who is fully responsible.

I ask that this notice be a lesson to those in my household as they now understand how severe the consequences may be for committing such an act. I do not wish this situation to grow any more than it needs to be. I am currently going through transitioning from military life in Afghanistan to life back home in NZ, and I'm not fit to tackle this allegation made against me.

However, I take full responsibility for the acts committed under my IP address and wish for this to be resolved asap. I am willing to co-operate by any means required of me.

And yet... the Tribunal still made him pay $255.97, despite not doing anything. The breakdown was $200 to reimburse the RIANZ for the application against him, $50 in fees, and another $5.97 for the "price" of the 3 songs on iTunes. Of course, since he wasn't the one who downloaded the songs in the first place, it seems ridiculous that he should have to pay for those songs, let alone the various other fees.

As Rick Shera points out in the link above, the Tribunal even acknowledged that it could override the automatic fine by claiming such a ruling would be "manifestly unjust," but bizarrely chose not to. Shera questions under what circumstances the Tribunal would ever use that ability if it didn't use it in this case:

So, it was open to the Tribunal to decide in these circumstances - soldier overseas, no way of knowing who infringed and therefore no ability to recover any award, admitted responsibility - that to make an award was manifestly unjust. Remember that it is unjustness to the account holder (the soldier in this instance) that is relevant not any unjustness to or cost incurred by the copyright owner. Difficult for the Tribunal though without any argument on the point being presented by the Respondent.

I have said before that trying to show manifest unjustness will be extremely hard, especially given the presumption of guilt in section 122N and the fact that an account holder is liable for all actions taken using its account. I think this case underlines that. I find it hard now to imagine any circumstance that will invoke this protection for an account holder.

Filed Under: afghanistan, copyright, liability, new zealand, three strikes, tribunal
Companies: rianz

Army Propaganda Unit Ordered To Illegally Target US Senators With Psy-Ops Propaganda

from the wrong-target,-general dept

Last week, Rolling Stone broke the news that the US Army's team of psy-ops (psychological operations) specialists in Afghanistan were ordered to target their efforts towards visiting US officials rather than Afghanis. This is highly illegal. US law says that any sort of psy-ops/propaganda efforts can only be targeted at foreign citizens:

The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department's own definition, psy-ops -- the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors � are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you're not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's what you learn on day one."

The army does have a public affairs team, who is supposed to help on domestic issues, but their focus is more of a PR type role, rather than overt propaganda and misdirection. However, it appears that some of the top Army brass in Afghanistan made it clear that the psy-ops team was to focus almost exclusively on visiting Americans, rather than influencing locals. The goal was to convince US politicians to keep sending more money and more men. The psy-ops team resisted and complained, but were continually ordered to do so. When the head of the team consulted a lawyer about the issue -- and was told by the lawyer that his concerns appeared valid -- the army retaliated by opening an investigation of the guy, Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, with what appear to be ridiculously trumped up charges (such as accusing him of using Facebook too much -- something he'd been encouraged to do by his commanders).

And, of course, after all of this, the Pentagon and the Army appear to be working on ways to cover this all up by making it look legit. They've done away with the name "psy-ops," changing it to the bland and vague "MISO" (Military Information Support Operations). Also, a few months later, the entire psy-ops team was told, "effective immediately," that they were being renamed from an "information operation cell" to an "information engagement cell," and told their "sole purpose" was to now do public relations, targeting everyone, including the US. So, basically, after going against the law that forbids propaganda targeted at the US, the Army decided to paper it over by taking the soldiers specifically trained for propaganda and pretending they're just PR people.

Filed Under: afghanistan, propaganda, psy-ops, us army

So WikiLeaks Is Evil For Releasing Documents... But DynCorp Gets A Pass For Pimping Young Boys To Afghan Cops?

from the wtf dept

One refrain we keep hearing against Wikileaks is that the cable releases aren't really "whistleblowing," because they're not really revealing anything. However, it seems like each day there's another big revelation of rather horrible things being done (and covered up) by the US government. The latest, pointed out by Boing Boing, involves a report from a cable that US-based private security contractor DynCorp, who was hired by the US to train Afghani police, was apparently supplying drugs and young boys for a sort of sex party.

The details are horrifying. The Afghani interior minister apparently went to US officials to warn them that reporters were sniffing around this story, and urged them to try to kill the story. He specifically warned that this would look bad if the connection to DynCorp was made clear (he called them "foreign mentors"). Apparently, US diplomats told him not to worry, and the eventual story was in fact watered down greatly (until now, of course) calling the whole thing a "tribal dance," rather than a party where young boys wear "scanty women's clothes" and "dance seductively" before being "auctioned off to the highest bidder" for sex.

Oh, did we mention that DynCorp makes $2 billion per year -- 95% of which comes from American taxpayers.

And US government officials are declaring Wikileaks as an organization to shun and not to work with? What about DynCorp? Are their DNS providers pulling the plug? Are their banks shutting down their accounts? Are they being denounced by Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman? No? Why the hell not?

Filed Under: afghanistan, wikileaks
Companies: dyncorp, wikileaks

Afghanistan Follows Pakistan In Demanding ISPs Censor The Internet

from the not-so-inter dept

Last week we noted that Pakistan had chosen to start censoring a bunch of big websites, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Amazon. And now the EFF notes that Afghanistan has created new rules for the internet, saying that ISPs need to start filtering websites that fall under the following categories:

• Alcohol
• Dating/Social Networking
• Gambling
• Pornography

Because it's not easy to properly filter, reports coming out of the country suggest that ISPs are just choosing to block Facebook, Gmail, YouTube, and Twitter outright. It looks like more and more countries are deciding to censor the internet. This may not be a surprise, but it is a little upsetting if you believe in the importance of free expression.

Filed Under: afghanistan, blocks, censorship

Soldier In Afghanistan Accidentally Calls Parents In The Middle Of A Battle

from the phone-home dept

Most folks have experienced "accidental" phone calls, when a poorly designed mobile phone interface leads to a phone in a pocket somewhere accidentally redialing the last number called. Every once in a while you hear stories about it happening at very inappropriate times. But Jeff Nolan points us to an extreme such a case. An American soldier in Afghanistan accidentally dialed his parents' phone number in Oregon, just as he was in the middle of a battle. His parents weren't home, but the message was recorded on their voicemail, including (as you might expect) guns firing, lots of swearing, and the son yelling about problems he was having with his gun as well as the need for more ammunition. Even worse, the call cut off just as another soldier yelled "Incoming! RPG!" As you might imagine, the parents were a bit freaked out, but eventually reached their son, who says he's a bit embarrassed by the whole ordeal. Yet another reminder to make sure to "lock" the keypad on your phone.

Filed Under: accidental phone calls, afghanistan, soldier