How the U.S. Could Respond to the DNC Breach; Slate, 7/26/16

Laura K. Bate, Slate; How the U.S. Could Respond to the DNC Breach:

"After a possible Russian attempt to influence U.S. elections by hacking the Democratic National Committee, the FBI has announced that it will investigate the origins of the hack. International interference in the democratic process has a long and storied past, but inhibiting self-determination is generally considered unacceptable and warrants a response.

But what should that response be? Below are six different paths the United States could take to answer the data breach. The choice will depend on many factors—the evidence supporting Russian involvement, the state of U.S.–Russian relations, the challenge of avoiding the appearance of using the tools of government to assist the Democratic candidate. Whatever the United States does or does not do will set an important precedent worldwide."

The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it?; Washington Post, 7/26/16

Paul Waldman, Washington Post; The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it? :

"...[T]here’s something utterly bizarre about the kind of coverage this story is getting. Evidence currently suggests that the Russian government may have attempted to sway the results of the U.S. presidential election. I put that in italics, because it ought to be in screaming 72-point headlines on every front page in America. And yet, it’s being treated like just one more odd story in a wacky election year, not much more important than the latest fundraising numbers or which ethnic group Donald Trump has insulted most recently...

That being said, this hack represents something profoundly different from what we’ve seen before. We’ve known that foreign intelligence services from countries like China and Russia have in the past attempted to infiltrate not only government networks but those of other political organizations and actors, like the parties. What distinguishes this attack is that it wasn’t just for the purposes of surveillance. They weren’t trying to figure out what Americans are up to, they were trying to intervene to change the results of our election. Goldsmith suggests some even more frightening possibilities:

What if the hackers interspersed fake but even more damning or inflammatory emails that were hard to disprove? What if hackers break in to computers to steal or destroy voter registration information? What if they disrupted computer-based voting or election returns in important states during the presidential election? The legitimacy of a presidential election might be called into question, with catastrophic consequences. The DNC hack is just the first wave of possible threats to electoral integrity in the United States—by foreign intelligence services, and others.

For all we know, the DNC hack was a trial run for something much more ambitious."

Bigger than Watergate: The Russian-orchestrated DNC email hack places our national sovereignty at stake; Salon, 7/27/16

Bob Cesca, Salon; Bigger than Watergate: The Russian-orchestrated DNC email hack places our national sovereignty at stake:

"As of this writing, further details along with the chain-of-evidence is still being established by journalists, security experts and the FBI. (By the way, before anyone kneejerks to the “crazy conspiracy theory” conclusion, it’s worth noting that everyone from the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, to A-list reporter Richard Engel, along with The Daily Beast, ABC News, NBC News, Yahoo! News, Slate, TPM, Vice and The Washington Post have been uncovering new and frightening aspects of this story going back to June and culminating with the past 48 hours.) According to investigative journalists at Vice’s “Motherboard,” in particular, a security firm hired by the DNC discovered the existence of “two sophisticated adversaries” that had infiltrated the Democratic Party’s internal email network. Known as “APT 28″ and “APT 29,” the handles are used by both the Russian intelligence service, the FSB (formerly the KGB) and the Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU. Later, using a front handle known as the aforementioned “Guccifer 2.0,” the agencies announced back in June that it had given Wikileaks “thousands of files and mails.”

Regarding the content of some of the emails, bear this in mind: according to conservative author and former NSA analyst, John Schindler, who, by the way, is no fan of Hillary Clinton, part of the FSB’s tradecraft is to fabricate intelligence and toss it into a cocktail of legitimate documents. In other words, it’s fair to speculate, based on Russia’s modus operandi, that the questionable emails were doctored, if not manufactured for impact, while exculpatory emails might’ve been scrubbed from the tranche. We have to question everything here, given the tenacity of Putin’s propaganda efforts...

One last thing: if you’re only looking at this story as an internal DNC scandal, you’re missing the despotic forest for the trees. We can’t emphasize enough: this story is bigger than Bernie or Hillary. It’s bigger than Trump. It speaks directly to the sovereignty of our electoral process. The sooner it’s treated this way, the better off we’ll be."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats; Guardian, 7/24/16

Dan Roberts, Ben Jacobs, Alan Yuhas, Guardian; Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair as email scandal rocks Democrats:

"The most explosive new revelation from the Wikileaks release was an official’s suggestion that Sanders’ religious faith, or lack thereof, could be flagged as a way to dissuade voters from backing him in Bible belt states.

“I think I read he is an atheist,” the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, wrote in one email. “This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Sanders, who is Jewish, spoke little of religion during the primary, but the sight of a supposedly neutral body apparently seeking to weaken one of its own party candidates caused particular anger among progressives.

Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida who is herself Jewish, is not thought to have been directly involved in this email exchange, but she was seen in other messages writing dismissively of the Sanders campaign."

How the Apple/FBI Fight Risks the Whole U.S. Tech Industry; Harvard Business Review, 2/24/16

James Allworth, Harvard Business Review; How the Apple/FBI Fight Risks the Whole U.S. Tech Industry:

"If the U.S. is serious about housing the world’s greatest technology sector — and it should be, because it’s undoubtedly the most important economic sector of the future — then it is going to need to get more serious about fostering it and viewing it as more than just a place for whistle-stop tours for candidates to raise campaign funds. This isn’t to say that the government should do whatever the sector asks, but rather that it needs to be incredibly considered in the rules it imposes and the asks that it makes of the sector — because each of these are going to be closely scrutinized by every other country in the world. The principles that the U.S. lives by are the ones that the rest of the world will adopt.

In the case of San Bernardino, the FBI may find the answers it wants in that single cell phone, or it may not. But the government needs to be very clear that it’s not just Apple being dragged into this trial — it’s the entire U.S. tech sector, and by extension the future of the U.S. economy itself."

Why Apple Is Right to Challenge an Order to Help the F.B.I.; New York Times, 2/18/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Why Apple Is Right to Challenge an Order to Help the F.B.I. :

"Even if the government prevails in forcing Apple to help, that will hardly be the end of the story. Experts widely believe that technology companies will eventually build devices that cannot be unlocked by company engineers and programmers without the permission of users. Newer smartphones already have much stronger security features than the iPhone 5c Mr. Farook used.

Some officials have proposed that phone and computer makers be required to maintain access or a “back door” to encrypted data on electronic devices. In October, the Obama administration said it would not seek such legislation, but the next president could have a different position.

Congress would do great harm by requiring such back doors. Criminals and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies could exploit such features to conduct mass surveillance and steal national and trade secrets. There’s a very good chance that such a law, intended to ease the job of law enforcement, would make private citizens, businesses and the government itself far less secure."

A Message to Our Customers; Apple, 2/16/16

Tim Cook, Apple; A Message to Our Customers:

"The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook"

In Munich, a frightening preview of the rise of killer robots; Washington Post, 2/16/16

David Ignatius, Washington Post; In Munich, a frightening preview of the rise of killer robots:

"The Munich Security Conference is an annual catalogue of horrors. But the most ominous discussion this past weekend wasn’t about Islamic State terrorism but a new generation of weapons — such as killer robots and malignly programmed “smart” appliances that could be deployed in future conflicts.

Behind the main events at the annual discussion of foreign and defense policy here was a topic described in one late-night session as “The Future of Warfare: Race with the Machines.” The premise was that we are at the dawn of an era of conflict in which all wars will be, to some extent, cyberwars, and new weapons will combine radical advances in hardware, software and even biology."