Sunday, March 22, 2015

I could have done without this. We have people in this country who listen to the voices in their head or the commands of the neighbor's dog. Now we need to worry about these nuts passing them specific targeting information? I hope someone is passing the details to local law enforcement and trustworthy neighbors.
Jason Molinet reports:
Islamic State hackers have posted the personal details of 100 U.S. service members they claim took part in the bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan – and called on homegrown radicals to strike back.
The group calling itself Islamic State Hacking Division allegedly gathered the dossier from cracked military databases and made an open call for “jihad against the crusaders” using, a Polish-based social network favored by ISIS propagandists.
Read more on NY Daily News.
The ISIS support Twitter account, @ISHackingDiv was suspended shortly after posting a link to the material.
The Department of Defense has not yet confirmed or denied the accuracy of the information nor the hackers’ claims that they obtained the material through various sources, including hacked databases.

Could be just an angry ex-employee causing waves. Could be government bureaucracy at it's worst. Probably will die quietly unless something significant leaks.
Peter Jackson reports:
First they said they’re looking into it. Now they’re saying nothing happened.
The day before he was cut from cabinet on March 12, former Services NL minister Tony Cornect denied there was ever a security breach at the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).
The OCIO oversees information technology and security for the government and goverment agencies, including health boards and the police.
Their denials are challenged by the former security analyst who raised the alarm originally:
“We know that there was two-way communication between the government DNS servers and the server in the Czech Republic; therefore, messages were exchanged. We may not know the significance of these messages, but to argue that there were no messages is disingenuous.”
Read more on The Telegram.
[From the article:
… The OCIO oversees information technology and security for the government and goverment agencies, including health boards and the police.
… Internal communications obtained by The Telegram show that while Lorimer’s alerts about the breaches were acknowledged, they were not acted upon for a week.
… The OCIO said the matter was investigated at the time and that there was no threat to security. But after Lorimer filed an information request looking for the results of that investigation, the office admitted no such report existed.
In November 2014, Cornect called for an external investigation into the matter. That review was carried out by EWA-Canada. The findings were submitted over a month ago, on Feb. 11.
I have contacted the OCIO in an attempt to obtain the report, and Lorimer has filed an access-to-information request. But the department has so far refused to release it.

“It's completely neutral except for the part that's not neutral.” Big Cable Brother
Streaming TV Services Seek to Sidestep Web Congestion
HBO, Showtime, and Sony Corp. are jumping into online television. But instead of putting their Web traffic on the public Internet’s main thoroughfare, they want to be in a separate lane that would ensure their content gets special treatment.
Those companies have talked to major broadband providers such as Comcast Corp. about having their Web TV services treated as “managed” services, according to people familiar with the discussions.
… The Federal Communications Commission’s recently approved net-neutrality rules, which go into effect in a few months, bar broadband providers from accepting payment from companies to favor their traffic. And the rules say the FCC “expressly reserves the authority to take action” if it finds that specialized services are “being used to evade the open Internet rules.”
But the agency has maintained that cable and phone companies can offer certain specially managed services—digital phone and video-on-demand, for example—that run on a dedicated slice of bandwidth in the cable pipe that is separate from the portion reserved for public Internet access.
… At least one emerging online TV player, Dish Network Corp.’s Sling TV, believes the managed-service arrangement would be a negative overall. “It’s a bad thing for consumers and a bad thing for innovation,” said Roger Lynch, Sling TV’s chief executive, adding that big companies like Dish could afford to cut special deals like this but small companies can’t.
“It makes a mockery of net neutrality,” he said, adding that Sling would strike such a deal only “under duress,” if other companies did first.

Curious. On the military side, we seem to be very opposed to becoming the world's police force. DoJ does not seem to be worried about that at all. Should we assume that the countries where these “law breakers” live do not have laws they have broken? Would we allow US citizens to prosecuted under laws that do not exist in the US? Is “offering for sale” proof of “intent to defraud?”
I’ve been posting some of the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempts to justify their proposed amendments to cybersecurity laws. Here’s how the most recent post in their series begins:
In the last of our series on the need for limited updates to laws enhancing cybersecurity while protecting individual rights, this post will describe a proposal that is geared toward shutting down the international black market for Americans’ stolen financial information.
Here is the problem. Current law makes it a crime to sell “access devices” such as credit card numbers. The law allows the government to prosecute offenders located outside the United States if the credit card number involved in the offense was issued by an American company and meets a set of additional requirements. In the increasingly international marketplace for stolen financial information, however, these requirements have proved increasingly unworkable in practice. The government has to prove either that an “article” used in committing the offense moved though the United States, or that the criminal is holding his illicit profits in an American bank. But when you steal only digital data, it’s not clear what “article” could be involved. And of course, foreign criminals generally move their money back to their home country.
Read more on DOJ’s Blog.

No comments: