Tag Archives: Security

“A Song for the Deaf” (and the Blind)

Songs for the Deaf, released on August 27 2002, was the third studio album by Queens of the Stone Age. There is a track on there called “A Song for the Deaf” with a line in the lyrics:

No talk will cure what’s lost, or save what’s left

That line does just fine at summing up my attitude to the long term prospects for the privacy of our data and our privacy rights as individuals. The multiplicity of additional data points that will become available with the mainstream adoption of wearables, AR, and VR squares the circle by adding kinematic fingerprinting and emotion detection to the digital surveillance arsenal.

The concerted effort by “authority” to normalise the invasion of our privacy as citizens of democracies will succeed. It is worth noting at this point that the historic permission to look at our (non-US citizens) data is for the most part secretively mandated or just plain illegal.

In the interim I simply see it as my hobby to be a contrarian and frankly I do not give one iota what that looks like to prospective employers, clients, or colleagues. Too many people look at you sideways these days when you seek to insist that we are throwing away our rights in favour of some US manufactured bogey-man fear figure.

But despite the ever increasing powers granted there are far too many people gainfully employed in law enforcement, the intelligence community, and the cottage industries and corporates that serve them to hope that one day their combined efforts might actually result in an improvement in the threat landscape.

Narrowing the Debate

One of the methods often used to divert attention from the overall issues that present themselves with respect to mass surveillance is to seek to narrow the debate. Some people will say that debating each element in isolation is enough. It is not.

The police-intelcom barrier or rather the lack of a barrier between police organizations and intelligence organizations or the illegal overriding of such barriers is one of the reasons why. Too many blurred lines exist. Mass surveillance data acquired for national security purposes now routinely ends up in the hands of local law enforcement investigating matters unrelated to national security.

The opacity of US laws and SIGINT collection methods is potentially an abuse of the rights of every defendant that comes in front of their Courts. Increasingly, that is just about anybody that they can lay their hands on, from anywhere. The US position on most of these matters is ephemeral. [Max Schrems maintains the main protections provided by the US for data privacy rights of EU citizens have no statutory basis and “could be altered tomorrow”]

To suggest that one can compartmentalise each different element of the mass surveillance equation and debate each piece of legislation on its own merits, to the exclusion of the others, is a fallacy.

They all add up to the same thing in the hands of the governments or organisations that possess the resources, access, and “authority” (normally self granted) to mine the data.

This post was prompted by Chris Gebhardt‍ and the article he penned on Peerlyst‍ titled “The US Government Should Have Access to All Encrypted Devices of US Citizens“.

I commented “I utterly disagree with your thesis on every level. I disagree with you on the basis that I do not accept your segmentation of rights and protections in statute that govern legacy personal freedoms, due process, habeas corpus, et al. and the stratagem that you have employed to roll them up into an argument for weakened privacy (encryption). I believe that your reliance on these legacy instruments makes the flawed assumption that they were correct. In my view, they were not.

Chris was keen to keep the debate focussed on the US. So I asked:

Maybe we can circumvent the specifics of either geography and focus the discussion on a universal question which is capable of also addressing the specifics of your argument. The US does not respect digital borders and engages in frequent – and as policyillegal searches and seizures in a clandestine manner for non natsec matters and “ordinary” criminal matters. Now the US having weathered the outrage storm is legislating vigourously for the normalisation of these abnormalities which were in fact illegal under traditional law also.

The debate between us therefore could be something like – to date have existing laws and the application and oversight of the powers granted by those laws served us well and if so are they also suited for export to the digital domain. If not, then why should those who currently enjoy freedoms in the digital domain subject themselves to laws that they disagreed with in the real world context or were shown to have been widely abused, and more specifically how can a body of agencies who gladly engaged in widespread illegal activities expect people to surrender to their request?

Chris replied:

That is fine but I believe it is a separate post. Perhaps you should start one. I started this one to specifically target the US privacy issue under Constitutional authority. International expectations are a completely different matter.

So here it is.

Image: Screen grab from the QOTSA video “Go With The Flow


PODCAST Panel #1: PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security


Since mid December 2017 our panel was preparing for this first in the series of discussions regarding Privacy -vs- National Security hosted by and drawn from Peerlystcommunity members.

The panel was drawn from a range of disciplines and interests but what united all of the participants was that we are people who are passionate about infosec, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

This series is primarily concerned with how we might align the privacy rights of citizens with the imperatives of predicting, preventing, and reacting to internal & external national security threats.

Our objective was to deliver an opening discussion on the subject matter that would compel further debate and interest, but also attempt to compartmentalise the discrete elements, for discussion on future panels , while at the same time demonstrating the scale of the issues involved with practical real world, non-theoretical examples.

Over the preparation period several pieces were authored on the subject of Privacy -vs- National Security. The links to these associated posts are:

  1. PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security: One Post To Rule Them All
  2. Video Introduction to Podcast #1 of the PeerTalk™ Privacy -v- National Security Podcast Panel Series
  3. PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security: Preserve Peace Through (Cyber & Intelligence) Strength
  4. PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security Sources: In Isolation & Where They Intersect
  5. PeerTalk™ Peerlyst Panel: Privacy vs National Security
  6. PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security: Gülen FETÖ/PDY, Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT) & ByLock
  7. PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security: You (encryption advocates) are “jerks”, “evil geniuses”, and “pervert facilitators”
  8. PeerTalk™ Privacy -vs- National Security: The Rogues Gallery of Encryption Luddites (Updated 01.16.2018)
  9. Also included below were two essays from panel member Geordie B Stewart MSc CISSP
    1. Polluting the Privacy Debate
    2. Ethical Compromises in the Name of National Security

The questions to the panel in preparation for the discussion were these:

  1. Are recent actions by the Turkish intelligence community reasonable with the backdrop of an alleged serious threat to the security of the state?
  2. Could one ever imagine a similar scenario in the West and if so would it ever be justified?
  3. Does the panel think that while broad brush application of these types of tools and methods by law enforcement and the intelligence community does not happen in the West, does it happen on a case by case basis?
  4. If so, is protecting one person from a miscarriage of justice using illegally obtained surveillance data more important than allowing warrantless mass surveillance and trusting that the intelligence community and political / commercial interests will not abuse the knowledge yielded from the data and rather use it for the national interest?
  5. Finally, does the panel have faith in the oversight and governance mechanism looking to protect citizens of Western nations whose data is acquired by programs such as PRISM and queried using tools such as XKeyscore?”

The panellists were:

Graham Joseph Penrose‍ (Moderator), Interim Manager in a range of Startups, Privacy Advocate, Avid Blogger, and Homeless Activist. I began my career in IT 30 years ago in Banking and in the intervening period I have applied technology and in particular secure communications to assist me in various roles but most aggressively as the owner of a Private MilitarySecurity Company operating in High Risk Areas globally. I am apparently a Thought Leader and Authority in the Privacy space according to various independent third party research organisations and I am member of the IBM Systems Innovators Program.

Kim Crawley‍, Cybersecurity Journalist. A respected and valued contributor to Peerlyst and publications including Cylance,AlienVault, Tripwire, and Venafi.

Emily Crose‍, Network Security Researcher with 10 years experience in both offensive and defensive security roles, 7 of those years were spent in the service of the United States Intelligence Community. She is currently the director of the Nemesis projectand works for a cyber security startup in the Washington DC area.

Lewis De Payne‍, Board Member, Vice President & CTO/CISO of medical diagnostics company aiHEALTH, LLC. CTO/CIIO of a social commerce startup and a founding shareholder in Keynetics responsible for the patented online fraud control tools known as Kount. Lewis has had some adversarial contacts with the FBI that are documented in several of Kevin Mitnick’s (and other writers’) books. Lewis electronically wiretapped the FBI and other law enforcement bureaus, and recorded some of their activities (which included having informants perform illegal wiretaps, so they could gain probable cause to obtain search warrants). In his younger days, Lewis took the US government to court several times In one case his proceedings set legalprecedent when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard his Jencks Action and ruled in his favour causing the FBI to have to return all seized property (and computers) to him, and others.

Geordie B Stewart MSc CISSP‍, Director at Risk Intelligence which company provides a range of specialist infosec services to organisations including risk analysis, policy development, security auditing and compliance, education, training, and continuity planning. Geordie writes and speaks frequently on the topics of Privacy, Ethics and National Security. Partly because he thinks they are important topics, but partly to increase his embarrassment when his web history eventually leaks. Geordie also writes the security awareness column for the ISSA Journal and works in senior security leadership roles for large organisations.

Dean Webb‍, Network Security Specialist. Dean has 12 years of experience in IT and IT Security, as well as over two decades as an instructor and journalist with particular focus on national security issues, espionage, and civil rights.

We enjoyed a wide ranging and informative discussion over the course of the 90 minutes and while we were not in a position to cover all of the material it was a very acceptable starting point and a stake in the ground with respect to what the community can expect from this series of panels.

I opened the discussion with the question:

“Where do the panellists believe that the line should be drawn between what are personal privacy rights versus the needs of national security and do the panellists think that in recent years the public in an atmosphere of “fear” has too easily surrendered a range of privacy rights in favour of national security?”

Please enjoy the recording below which we hope you will find compelling enough to share with your community. We are looking forward to your feedback and we would be very pleased to have your comments, suggestions, and questions. (Don’t forget to subscribe to the Peerlyst YouTube channel so as not to miss the next in our series and also recordings of all of the other panels coming out of the PeerTalk™ initiative.)


Register Your Club To Use My Face Value Free Of Charge

My Face Value is preparing for launch on 31st December 2017. To keep up to date with the latest news follow us on Facebook and Twitter

What Will My Face Value Do For Your Club?

My Face Value will make our platform available for use by your Club – free of charge – for:

  • Ticketing – Selling Tickets To Your Games
  • Posting Your Fixtures & Results
  • Promotions – Announcing Events & General News
  • Running Competitions & Fundraisers
  • Merchandising – Your Club Shop Online
  • Blogging – Allowing You To Keep Your Fans & Community Informed
  • Other – We will take suggestions for other services that Clubs would like us to consider providing

Why Are My Face Value Doing This?

The My Face Value mission is to remove touts (street level and corporate) from the ticket supply chain.

Touting and ticket price gouging will always exist in one form or another. In time, the positive disruptive activities of My Face Value will make touting far less prevalent and see far less wasted money from honest punters on counterfeit tickets or genuine fans being priced out of attending events.

We need the Clubs support to achieve our goals. Especially around a universally accepted process that governs the secondary ticket market that we want to see operate at Face Value ONLY with NO touting of any kind.

My Face Value is committed to introducing positive change. To demonstrate the My Face Value commitment to the grassroots and the development and promotion of football and fairness at all levels of the game we stated at the outset that we would allow qualifying Clubs access to our platform – free of charge.

By doing so we are giving qualifying Clubs access to world class marketing tools, technology and best practices to promote their Clubs and their Communities.

Who Can Register?

Registration is available to all clubs in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who do NOT play in the following leagues:

  • English Premier League
  • English Football League Championship
  • English League One
  • English League Two
  • English National League
  • English National League North
  • English National League South
  • Scottish Premiership
  • Scottish Championship
  • Scottish League One
  • Scottish League Two
  • Welsh Premier League
  • NIFL Premiership
  • NIFL Championship
  • League of Ireland Premier Division
  • League of Ireland First Division

To register your interest please email AMAclubs@myfacevalue.co.uk


Does anyone have experience of “KAYMERA MOBILE THREAT DEFENSE SUITE”

We are looking at this platform in parallel with the SaltDNA app which I previously posted about.

Kaymera has a pre-installed secured Android OS with integrated high-end security components to detect, prevent and protect against all mobile security threats without compromising on functionality or usability. A contextual, risk-based app uses a range of indicators to identify a risk in real-time and apply the right security measure so mitigation is performed only when needed and appropriate. Their Cyber Command Centre framework manages and enforces organization-specific permissions, security protocols and device policies. Monitors risk level, threat activities and security posture per device and deploys countermeasures.

Any thoughts welcome.


People That Like To Throw Grenades Into Your Privacy

For good or for bad I have a tattoo that reads “Fidarsi è bene non fidarsi è meglio” which literally translated is “To trust is good but to not trust is better.” or colloquially “Better safe than sorry”. At least that’s what Google translate told me. I have to trust it. But Veritas Language Solutions have previously reported on the perils of foreign language tats. Like the man who wanted the Chinese symbols for “Live and let live” on his arm but ended up with the Mandarin for “Sweet and Sour Chicken”. I like sweet and sour chicken.

Your “Mass Surveillance” Reality 

In case you have forgotten the reality of the world that you live in right now (in terms of your Privacy), here is a reminder, before it gets exponentially worse:

“The attitude of these politicians (Trump, May, Valls & Co.) and their intelligence organisations and the new “laws” – in the form of the revised Patriot Act and the Investigatory Powers Act – means that’s the vast majority of the worlds English speaking population now live under governments who can – legally – invade their privacy at will – whether at home, at work or at leisure – store the information and use it for any purpose, at any time, at any point in the future – for any reason.”

But that is not good enough. Now they want all of your encrypted data too. Just in case.

Pop Quiz

With that as a backdrop here is a pop quiz and my answers to same (Note: I am a paranoid git, and grumpy):

  1. Do I trust Theresa May? – No;
  2. Do I trust Malcolm Turnbull – No;
  3. Do I trust Donald Trump – F**k No;
  4. Do I trust the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance – No;
  5. Do I trust the Nine Eyes, the Fourteen Eyes, NSA, GCHQ, MI6, ASD, GCSB, CIA, or CSEC – No;
  6. Do I trust the government of the country of my birth or their national security credentials – No;
  7. Do I think that politicians are concerned with striking an appropriate balance between the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and the preservation of civil liberties with the need to maintain the rule of law – No;
  8. Do I trust any bugger who asks me to trust them with the infinite power to snoop on my personal, professional, online, offline, awake, asleep life – Eh, No.

Do you?


IBM Mainframe Ushers in New Era of Data Protection with Pervasive Encryption

Main take-outs in IBM Z Systems announcement:

  1. Pervasively encrypts data, all the time at any scale;
  2. Addresses global data breach epidemic;
  3. Helps automate compliance for EU General Data Protection Regulation, Federal Reserve and other emerging regulations;
  4. Encrypts data 18x faster than compared x86 platforms, at 5 percent of the cost (Source: “Pervasive Encryption: A New Paradigm for Protection,” K. R. E. Lind, Chief Systems Engineer, Solitaire Interglobal Ltd., June 30, 2017);
  5. Announces six IBM Cloud Blockchain data centers with IBM Z as encryption engine;
  6. Delivers groundbreaking Container Pricing for new solutions, such as instant payments.

The new data encryption capabilities are designed to address the global epidemic of data breaches, a major factor in the $8 trillion cybercrime impact on the global economy by 2022. Of the more than nine billion data records lost or stolen since 2013, only four percent were encrypted, making the vast majority of such data vulnerable to organized cybercrime rings, state actors and employees misusing access to sensitive information.

In the most significant re-positioning of mainframe technology in more than a decade, when the platform embraced Linux and open source software, IBM Z now dramatically expands the protective cryptographic umbrella of the world’s most advanced encryption technology and key protection. The system’s advanced cryptographic capability now extends across any data, networks, external devices or entire applications – such as the IBM Cloud Blockchain service – with no application changes and no impact on business service level agreements.

“The vast majority of stolen or leaked data today is in the open and easy to use because encryption has been very difficult and expensive to do at scale,” said Ross Mauri, General Manager, IBM Z. “We created a data protection engine for the cloud era to have a significant and immediate impact on global data security.”


* From an article originally published on July 17 2017 on my Peerlyst blog

AI Voice Cloning & Perceived Reality – Fake News Has A New Friend

A Canadian startup called Lyrebird has announced that it has developed a platform capable of mimicking human voice with a fraction of the audio samples required by other platforms such as Google DeepMind and Adobe Project VoCo.

The Lyrebird synthesis software requires only 60 seconds of sample audio to produce it’s synthetic sample. VoCo needs about 20 minutes to do the same.

The quality of the voice reproductions that the software can make are mixed. Some are better than others.

The three founders state that they are addressing possible misuse concerns by making the software publicly available. That may be a little optimistic.

“By releasing our technology publicly and making it available to anyone, we want to ensure that there will be no such risks. We hope that everyone will soon be aware that such technology exists and that copying the voice of someone else is possible. More generally, we want to raise attention about the lack of evidence that audio recordings may represent in the near future.”

James Vincent at The Verge neatly summarizes the worrying outcomes of the combination of trick biometric software, 3D mapping and voice synthesizers.

“There are more troubling uses as well. We already know that synthetic voice generators can trick biometric software used to verify identity. And, given enough source material, AI programs can generate pretty convincing fake pictures and video of anyone you like. For example, this research from 2016 uses 3D mapping to turn videos of famous politicians, including George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, into real-time “puppets” controlled by engineers. Combine this with a realistic voice synthesizer and you could have a Facebook video of Donald Trump announcing that the US is bombing North Korea going viral before you know it.” 

Fake news has a new friend.