The Indian government says it’s reached an agreement that will allow government agencies in that Asian nation to eavesdrop on traffic emanating from the BlackBerry Messenger Service. It’s a temporary solution, but India’s government says a permanent deal should be in place by Jan. 31, 2011.
India first threatened to shutter the service a few months ago. So BlackBerry’s parent company, Research In Motion, found itself in quite a pickle – either risk losing access to a market of more than 1 billion people, or agree to subvert its own customers’ privacy. Obviously, the threat of taking a big financial hit won out.
India and several other nations in Asia and the Middle East have expressed concern that terrorists can use texting services like BBM to carry out their activities, and without government monitoring, they might be able to do so unchecked. The United Arab Emirates came to a similar agreement with RIM a couple of weeks ago, although BBM wasn’t specifically mentioned.
The Firesheep plug-in was developed by security researchers to highlight how insecure public Wi-Fi networks can be. Mission accomplished. Unfortunately, the tool works quite well, and its public availability now places a relatively powerful snooping tool that requires virtually no hacking skills or exceptional tech knowledge in the hands of anyone.
Another Firefox plug-in called Blacksheep was developed as a Firesheep alarm. It won’t secure your wireless data, and it won’t prevent your information from being snooped by Firesheep per se, but it will alert you when Firesheep is in use on the network you’re connected to so that you’re aware.
Bottom line, wireless networks are not as secure as their wired counterparts, and Wi-Fi hotspots open to the general public are even less secure. If your laptop can connect to a wireless router 100 feet away, then so can any other device in a 100-foot radius of that wireless router–which is why the router should have encryption enabled and require a password of some sort to gain access.
The issue is mainly a function of public Wi-Fi hotspots which generally have a completely open, and unencrypted wireless network available for patrons to join. In some cases, such as hotels, the Wi-Fi may actually use a password to prevent abuse by users who aren’t actually staying at the hotel, but those are only slightly more secure because the password is shared with everyone who stays there, and is rarely changed so acquiring it is a trivial matter.
Chet Wisniewski, a senior security advisor with Sophos, implored establishments such as Starbucks and McDonald’s to improve security by adopting an encrypted network with a default shared password. The sentiment is admirable, and the solution offered would provide better protection than no encryption at all–and prevent snooping by the current version of Firesheep–but, in the grand scheme it’s not much better.
A comment on the Sophos blog explains, “I’m not really sure “free” as password is a great idea, since a password in WPA2 is nothing but a pre-shared secret, which in turn is then used to create a unique key. The problem is, when everyone uses the same password, everyone will end up with the same key, which will be in intended use client and access point, but if someone else knows the password he will be able to come up with the same key,”
The commenter concludes with, “You might say now it’s better to have some encryption instead of none, but I think that’s even more dangerous, because people now will actually think they are secure, and will therefore feel at ease to do more dangerous stuff, while a black hat will actually have just little more inconvenience to decrypt it first based on the password he knows. In fact, a black hat might even be more attracted to such hot spots because he knows people feel more at ease to do dangerous things there.”
Public hotspots are convenient. It is nice to be able to kick back and surf the Web while sipping a pumpkin spice latte at Starbucks. Just realize that the Wi-Fi is insecure and limit your activities. Go ahead and read the headlines at CNN.com, but don’t check your bank balance, or do anything else that requires entering a username, password, or account number.
If you want or need to do more sensitive tasks over the public Wi-Fi, use a VPN connection of some sort so that there is an encrypted tunnel between your laptop or tablet and the destination you are connecting to.
Lawyers from across the government are investigating whether it can prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage, a senior defense official said Tuesday.
The official, not authorized to comment publicly, spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The decision is complicated by the very newness of Assange’s Internet- based outfit: Is it journalism or espionage or something in between?
Other charges also might be possible, including theft of government property or receipt of stolen government property.
The government’s decisions about whether or how to bring criminal charges against participants in the WikiLeaks disclosures are complicated by the very newness of Julian Assange’s Internet-based outfit: Is it journalism or espionage or something in between?
Justice, State and Defense Department lawyers are discussing whether it might be possible to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder and others under the Espionage Act, a senior defense official said Tuesday.
They are debating whether the Espionage Act applies, and to whom, according to this official, who spoke anonymously to discuss an ongoing criminal investigation. Other charges also might be possible, including theft of government property or receipt of stolen government property.
Rep. Peter King of New York called for Assange to be charged under the Espionage Act and asked whether WikiLeaks can be designated a terrorist organisation.
But Assange has portrayed himself as a crusading journalist: He told ABC News by e-mail that his latest batch of State Department documents would expose “lying, corrupt and murderous leadership from Bahrain to Brazil.” He told Time magazine he targets only “organisations that use secrecy to conceal unjust behavior.”
Longtime Washington lawyer Plato Cacheris, who represented CIA official Aldrich Ames and other espionage defendants, said Tuesday that Assange could argue he is protected by the First Amendment, a freedom of the press defense. “That would be one, certainly,” Cacheris said.
Constrained by the First Amendment’s free press guarantees, the Justice Department has steered clear of prosecuting journalists for publishing leaked secrets. Leakers have occasionally been prosecuted, usually government workers charged under easier-to-prove statutes criminalising the mishandling of classified documents.
But two leakers faced Espionage Act charges, with mixed results.
The last leak that approached the size of the WikiLeaks releases was the Pentagon Papers during the Nixon administration.
The Supreme Court slapped down President Richard Nixon’s effort to stop newspapers from publishing those papers. But the leaker, ex-Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg, was charged under the Espionage Act with unauthorised possession and theft of the papers.
A federal judge threw out the charges because of government misconduct including burglary of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s files by the White House “plumbers” unit.
The Reagan administration had more success against Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian intelligence analyst for the Navy and grandson of a famous US historian. Morison was convicted under the Espionage Act and of theft of government property for supplying a British publication, Jane’s Defence Weekly, with a US satellite photo of a Russian aircraft carrier under construction in a Black Sea port. Dozens of news organisations filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Morison because he was a $5,000-a-year part-time editor with Jane’s sister publication and thus arguably a journalist.
But WikiLeaks has entered a space where no journalist has gone before. News organisations have often sought information, including government secrets, for specific stories and printed secrets that government workers delivered to them, but none has matched Assange’s open worldwide invitation to send him any secret or confidential information a source can lay hands on.
Is WikiLeaks the leaker or merely the publisher?
“The courts have been somewhat reluctant to draw a line of demarcation between what we call mainstream media and everyone else,” said Washington attorney Stan Brand. “If these people are publishing and exercising First Amendment rights, I don’t know why they’re less entitled to their First Amendment rights to publish.”
But at a news conference Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder contrasted WikiLeaks with traditional news organisations, which he said acted responsibly in the matter even though several posted some classified material. Some news organisations consulted with the government in advance to avoid printing harmful material; Assange has claimed his efforts to do likewise were rebuffed.
“One can compare the way in which the various news organisations that have been involved in this have acted as opposed to the way in which WikiLeaks has,” said Holder.
Some see openings for the government.
Assange “has gone a long way down the road of talking himself into a possible violation of the Espionage Act,” First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams said on National Public Radio, noting that Assange has said leaks could bring down a US administration.
Washington lawyer Bob Bittman expressed surprise the Justice Department has not already charged Assange under the Espionage Act and with theft of government property over his earlier release of classified documents about US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bittman said it was widely believed those disclosures harmed US national security, in particular US intelligence sources and methods, meeting the requirement in several sections of the act that there be either intent or reason to believe disclosure could injure the United States.
“These are not easy questions,” said Washington lawyer Stephen Ryan, a former assistant US attorney and former Senate Government Affairs Committee general counsel. Ryan said it would be legally respectable to argue Assange is a journalist protected by the First Amendment and never had a duty to protect US secrets.
But Ryan added, “The flip side is whether he could be charged with aiding and abetting or conspiracy with an individual who did have a duty to protect those secrets.”
On the question of conspiracy there’s a legal difference between being a passive recipient of leaked material and being a prime mover egging on a prospective leaker, legal experts say.
Much could depend on what the investigation uncovers.
Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is being held in a maximum-security military brig at Quantico, Va., charged with leaking video of a 2007 US Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver. WikiLeaks posted the video on its website in April.
Military investigators say Manning is a person of interest in the leak of nearly 77,000 Afghan war records WikiLeaks published online in July. Though Manning has not been charged in the latest release of internal US government documents, WikiLeaks has hailed him as a hero.
Another obstacle would be getting Assange to the United States. His whereabouts are not publicly known.
In France, Interpol placed Assange on its most-wanted list Tuesday after Sweden issued an arrest warrant against him as part of a drawn-out rape probe – involving allegations he has denied. The Interpol “red notice” is likely to make international travel more difficult for him.
But even if Assange were charged and arrested in a country that has an extradition treaty with the United States, there could be problems getting him here. The Espionage Act carries a maximum penalty of death, and nations with no death penalty often refuse to send defendants here if they face possible execution.
One renowned First Amendment and national security lawyer, Duke law professor emeritus Michael Tigar urged caution.
“The US reaction to all of this is rather overblown,” Tigar said. “One should hesitate a long time before bringing a prosecution in a case like this. The First Amendment means that sometimes public expression makes the government squirm. … That diplomats collect information, and are sometimes brutally candid, comes as no surprise to anybody.”
(This version corrects grammar in 1st paragraph, changing “is” to “are.”)
They could put your mind at ease – or do very much the opposite.
A new arms race is on and it could change everything from the way we parent to how we get our celebrity gossip.
For the technology currently being used by the CIA to ferret out terrorist leaders in the hills of Pakistan is set to arrive in a neighbourhood near you – and there’s nowhere to hide.
Coming to a sky near you? A remote CCTV camera drone circles in the sky during a political rally in Britain last year. Drones are set to play a large part in the future of policing – but could they affect our personal lives also?
Personal drones – smaller, private versions of the infamous Predator – are the next hot technology for people looking to track celebrities, cheating lovers, or even wildlife.
And it could be a dream tool for the paparazzi, named after the Iralian for buzzing mosquitoes.
Now the metaphor is coming to life. Several personal drones are scheduled for completion next year.Â
A police constable in Liverpool tries out the force’s new remote-controlled UAV. Liverpool police have already used such drones to make at least one arrest
The officer can see from the drone’s perspective using a special pair of goggles
Already in the UK police are using drones to track thieves. In February, the Air
Robot was deployed by Merseyside police after officers lost an alleged car thief who had escaped on foot in thick fog.
Using the device’s on-board camera and thermal-imaging technology,
the operator was able to pick up the suspect through his body heat and
direct foot patrols to his location.
It led officers to a 16-year-old youth, who was hiding in
bushes alongside the Leeds-Liverpool canal, in Litherland, Merseyside.
The drone, which measures 3ft between the tips of its four
carbon fibre rotor blades, uses unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
technology originally designed for military reconnaissance.
The battery-powered device can have a range of cameras
attached to its main body, including CCTV surveillance or thermal
imaging cameras.
It is designed to hover almost silently above crime scenes and
send live footage to officers on the ground, but the unit can also
‘perch and stare’ from a solid platform, allowing the operator to
capture hours of footage from a hidden vantage point.
Merseyside Police is one of a handful of forces trying out the
devices which, at ÂŁ40,000 each, are far cheaper to use for small-scale
operations than a conventional helicopter.
They have been using the drones for two years, mainly to help
in search and rescue operations, to execute drug warrants and to crack
down on anti-social behaviour.
The Home Office is now exploring how the craft can be used to give back-up to police, ambulance and fire services.
A Predator drone like the ones used to hunt down terrorist leaders in Pakistan (file photo). The military must follow rules of engagement with such technology, but there are no such rules governing private use yet
Spy drones are considered the future of policing, although
critics have voiced concerns that they could be a worrying extension of
Big Brother Britain.
Last month arms manufacturer BAE Systems said it was adapting
military-style UAVs for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent
police. Documents showed the force hoped to begin using the drones in
time for the 2012 Olympics.
But they also indicated that the drones could eventually be
used to spy on the civilian population, by rooting out motorists
suspected of antisocial driving, for covert urban surveillance and to
monitor ‘waste management’ for local councils.
Similar concepts are already being developed in the U.S.
‘If the Israelis can use them to find terrorists, certainly a husband
is going to be able to track a wife who goes out at 11 o’clock at night
and follow her,’ New York divorce lawyer Raoul Felder told the Journal.
The technology is swiftly moving beyond military and even police circles – already unmanned aircraft that can fly predetermined routes cost just a few hundred dollars and can be operated by an iPhone.Â
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and former Navy fighter
pilot Missy Cummings is working to develop a ‘Personal Sentry’ drone about the size of a pizza box that warns soldiers if danger is approaching from behind.
But, she said, ‘that military stuff is kind of passe’.
‘It doesn’t take a rocket scientist from MIT to tell you if we can do it for a soldier in the field, we can do it for anybody.’
She told the Wall Street Journal that she could use such technology to follow her young child on the way to school by planting an electronic bug in her lunch box or backpack.
‘It would bring a whole new meaning to the term hover parent,’ she said.
The FAA has not approved the use of personal drones just yet. But a spokesman said the agency is working with private industry on standards that could allow the broader use of drones.Â
Grey areas already exist, however – particularly with the recreational use of drones.
There are no regulations governing recreational drone use. Instead the FAA recommends – emphasis on ‘recommends’ – such drones be flown away from populated areas, from aeroplanes, below a certain altitude and so on.
And if people claim their drones are for personal use, that could theoretically get around many FAA regulations.
So while the military has to follow rules of engagement regarding drone use, there is – as yet – no similar set of rules regarding privacy for domestic use of drones.
‘If everybody had enough money to buy one of these things, we could
all be wandering around with little networks of vehicles flying over our
heads spying on us,’ Ms Cummings said.
‘It really opens up a whole new
Pandora’s Box of: What does it mean to have privacy?’
