National Endowment for Democracy ('NED') A CIA Trojan Horse / NED & WaPO Propaganda

SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts July 30, 2015 Exclusive: The neocon-flagship Washington Post fired a propaganda broadside at President Putin for shutting down the Russian activities of the National Endowment for Democracy, but left out key facts like NED’s U.S. government funding, its quasi-CIA role, and its plans for regime change in Moscow, writes Robert Parry. By Robert Parry The Washington Post’s descent into the depths of neoconservative propaganda – willfully misleading its readers on matters of grave importance – apparently knows no bounds as was demonstrated with two deceptive articles regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin and why his government is cracking down on “foreign agents.” If you read the Post’s editorial on Wednesday and a companion op-ed by National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman, you would have been led to believe that Putin is delusional, paranoid and “power mad” in his concern that outside money funneled into non-governmental organizations represents a threat to Russian sovereignty. Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over Germany. The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians have enacted laws requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as “foreign agents” – and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman’s NED. The Post’s editors wrote that Putin’s “latest move, announced Tuesday, is to declare the NED an ‘undesirable’ organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a ‘threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.’ “The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED’s grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin’s ramparts. … “The new law on ‘undesirables’ comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ‘foreign agents’ if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage.” But there are several salient facts that the Post’s editors surely know but don’t want you to know. The first is that NED is a U.S. government-funded organization created in 1983 to do what the Central Intelligence Agency previously had done in financing organizations inside target countries to advance U.S. policy interests and, if needed, help in “regime change.” The secret hand behind NED’s creation was CIA Director William J. Casey who worked with senior CIA covert operation specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to establish NED in 1983. Casey – from the CIA – and Raymond – from his assignment inside President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council – focused on creating a funding mechanism to support groups inside foreign countries that would engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. To partially replace that CIA role, the idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money. But Casey recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA. “Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III – as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.” NED Is Born The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money — within NED — for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured. But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation. This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA’s congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill. The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented, not fully recognizing the significance of the demand. The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration’s choice of Carl Gershman to head the National Endowment for Democracy, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy. Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED’s first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC. For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that “Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.” Currently, Gershman’s NED dispenses more than $100 million a year in U.S. government funds to various NGOs, media outlets and activists around the world. The NED also has found itself in the middle of political destabilization campaigns against governments that have gotten on the wrong side of U.S. foreign policy. For instance, prior to the February 2014 coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing an anti-Russian regime in Kiev, NED was funding scores of projects. A second point left out of the Post’s editorial was the fact that Gershman took a personal hand in the Ukraine crisis and recognized it as an interim step toward regime change in Moscow. On Sept. 26, 2013, Gershman published an op-ed in the Washington Post that called Ukraine “the biggest prize” and explained how pulling it into the Western camp could contribute to the ultimate defeat of Russian President Putin. “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents,” Gershman wrote. “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” In other words, NED is a U.S. government-financed entity that has set its sights on ousting Russia’s current government. A third point that the Post ignored is that the Russian law requiring outside-funded political organizations to register as “foreign agents” was modeled on a US law, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. In other words, the U.S. government also requires individuals and entities working for foreign interests and seeking to influence U.S. policies to disclose those relationships with the U.S. Justice Department or face prison. If the Post’s editors had included any or all of these three relevant factors, you would have come away with a more balanced understanding of why Russia is acting as it is. You might still object but at least you would be aware of the full story. By concealing all three points, the Post’s editors were tricking you and other readers into accepting a propagandistic viewpoint – that the Russian actions were crazy and that Putin was, according to the Post’s headline, “power mad.” Gershman’s Op-Ed But you might think that Gershman would at least acknowledge some of these points in his Post op-ed, surely admitting that NED is financed by the U.S. government. But Gershman didn’t. He simply portrayed Russia’s actions as despicable and desperate. “Russia’s newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy on Tuesday was declared an “undesirable organization” prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy,” Gershman wrote, adding: “This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the ‘foreign agents’ law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia.” The reference to how a “foreign agents” registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn’t good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the op-ed. So would an acknowledgement of where NED’s money comes from. How many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power? Not surprisingly, Gershman couldn’t find the space to include any balance in his op-ed – and the Post’s editors didn’t insist on any. Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here. SOURCE https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/30/why-russia-shut-down-ned-fronts/ --------------------- COMMENT So there you go:  expect most of what you read in mainstream media to be US foreign policy serving propaganda. Likewise for Western banking/corporate-controlled, US foreign policy aligned, governments. Here's a bit more on NED: Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy excerpted from the book Rogue State A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/TrojanHorse_RS.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NED (National Endowment Democracy) >> funded Ukraine’s first think tank, Centre for Independent Political Research  ('independent' LOL) #USA 'democracy promoting' organisations  - eg National Endowment for Democracy (NED) & USAID - a front for political interference abroad.  National Endowment for Democracy helped to overthrow democratically elected govts in: >> Bulgaria 1990 >> Albania 1991/92 >> Ukraine 2014  National Endowment for Democracy (NED) successfully manipulated elections in: >> Nicaragua in 1990 >> Mongolia in 1996 #France, #Portugal & #Spain unions (& lefties) are being undermined by US / CIA National Endowment for Democracy   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And here's China on Washington Post: Chinese embassy rebukes WASHINGTON POST  re unfair accusations - cyberattacks / megaphone diplomacy counterproductive http://www.ecns.cn/2015/08-01/175371.shtml  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Don't know that I'll remember much of this.  Got a shocking memory. All I know is NED's bad news; US govt & mainstream media are hypocrites; and all you'll generally get in MSM is propaganda.  LOL

TPP - Raw Deal - "ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc"

Public Media and Utilities Could be Crushed by TPP: Wikileaks Published 30 July 2015 Wikileaks has dropped another TPP bombshell with a leaked letter suggesting the deal could force mass privatizations of state-owned enterprises The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could force state enterprises such as public utilities to put profits before public welfare and lead to mass privatizations, according to documents published by Wikileaks Wednesday. Under the TPP, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) would be forced to act “on the basis of commercial considerations,” according to the leak. The document also suggests multinational corporations could be empowered to sue SOEs for supposedly uncompetitive actions like favoring local businesses. The bombshell leak centers around a classified letter from the TPP's December 2013 ministerial meeting. SOEs themselves are common in most TPP countries, and advocates say they perform crucial services aimed at supporting public needs rather than turn a profit. Some examples include Canada's main postal operator, Canada Post, and Australia's public broadcaster ABC. The latter is consistently rated by viewers as one of Australia's most trusted sources of news. “SOEs are almost always state owned because they have functions other than those that are merely commercial, such as guaranteed access to important services, or because social, cultural, development and commercial functions are inextricably intertwined,” said Professor Jane Kelsey, from New Zealand's University of Auckland. In an analysis of Wednesday's leak commissioned by Wikileaks, Kelsey concluded the TPP could carve out a “backdoor to privatization” of state enterprises. She argued seemingly proposed regulations outlined in the leaked document ignore “the reality that SOEs and private firms are driven by different imperatives and obligations.” Kelsey's main complaint was with the document's demand that SOEs prioritize “commercial considerations,” pointing out many state enterprises intentionally run at losses for the public good. “Even where SOEs are profit-oriented, a government may elect not to extract full commercial profits, and choose to reinvest in the enterprise to strengthen the asset base or the quality of the services in ways that private investors would rarely do,” she explained. For example, Australia Post is restricted to using its profits to reinvest in improving services, or handing dividends back to Australia's federal government. Australian Greens trade spokesperson Peter Whish-Wilson told The Saturday Paper that the TPP's chapter on SOEs “directly challenges a government's right to own and operate any enterprise such as Australia Post, the ABC or power utilities that compete with corporate entities, but ultimately also the provision of public good services including healthcare, education. “(It's) a direct assault by corporations trying to limit the role of government,” he said. In a statement, Wikileaks said the leaked document proved the TPP will force member states to swallow “a wide-ranging privatization and globalization strategy.” “In this leak we see the radical effects the TPP will have, not only on developing countries, but on states very close to the center of the Western system,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Under negotiation for more than seven years, supporters say the TPP will streamline global trade and promote economic growth. Once the TPP is completed, its provisions will override national laws of its 12 member states, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United States. The deal is already being hailed as the largest trade agreement in world history, and will encompass over 40 percent of global GDP. However, the deal's provisions have been almost entirely withheld from the public, prompting critics to argue the agreement is subject to undue secrecy. The few glimpses the public has had into the closed door talks have been leaked drafts of the TPP published by Wikileaks. Independent analysts say the trade deal is a “bonanza” for big business, and a raw deal for consumers. U.S. trade officials have responded by urging the public not to read the leaks, arguing the draft documents may not accurately represent the final document. The controversial deal has already sparked international protests, with activists demanding negotiators open talks to public scrutiny. Warning that the TPP will erect a “'one size fits all' economic system,” Assange said public debate on the trade deal is urgently needed. “If we are to restructure our societies into an ultra-neoliberal legal and economic bloc that will last for the next 50 years then this should be said openly and debated,” he said. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Public-Media-and-Utilities-Could-be-Crushed-by-TPP-Wikileaks-20150730-0014.html --------------------- COMMENT This isn't democracy; this is corporate control of the state.   Western politicians and governments place corporate interests ahead of vital public interests and public well-being, as if this were already a corporate dictatorship it will definitely become under the TPP. Everything the public, workers, unions, and other activist have fought for over the decades is about to be denied the public, and government is even assigning national sovereignty to corporations, by virtue of placing corporate powers set out in the 'free trade' agreement ahead of national, state, and local authorities' ability to subsequently legislate in the interest of public well-being. In negotiating the TPP, elected government is working against public interest by even entertaining an agreement which lets corporations call the shots: with the threat of corporate lawsuits blocking future lawmaking; by letting corporations block the right to public ownership of vital public services; and by letting corporations dictate that the good of the corporation (profit) must come before the public good. It's criminal that this trade agreement has been kept from the public by politicians, who also hoped to keep the sell-out agreement under wraps for something like 5 years, even after signing. It's ironic that whilstleblower publisher WikiLeaks - whose editor is presently under siege, and under an unprecedented 5-year long attack by US authorities - is the source of information regarding this immense threat from corporate America and friends.  The hide of the politicians acting contrary to their mandate to serve the public, rather than to screw the public (as intended by the TPP), who have acted to keep this agreement from public scrutiny, is really something to behold. And the prospect of life under corporate rule, a la corporate controlled, less than minimum wage, downtrodden, union-less, exploited, underclass hell-hole USA, is positively frightening. So why are the unions silent? SEE ALSO: TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

PILIGER article: ASSANGE - Epic Struggle For Justice

SPECIAL FEATURE 31 Jul 2015 Julian Assange: The Untold Story Of An Epic Struggle For Justice By John Pilger This is an updated version of John Pilger’s 2014 investigation which tells the unreported story of an unrelenting campaign, in Sweden and the US, to deny Julian Assange justice and silence WikiLeaks. FULL ARTICLE @ SOURCE: https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/31/julian-assange-untold-story-epic-struggle-justice --------------------- COMMENT Another great article, and an excellent overview of what's going on.

Business Insider - "British spies are officially setting the standard for fighting hackers"

British spies are officially setting the standard for fighting hackers Business Insider Alastair Stevenson, Business Insider Jul. 29, 2015, 7:27 AM 13 UK big ben union flag jack umbrellaREUTERS/Luke MacGregorBritish spy standards have gone international. A pilot scheme for the UK government’s cyber security training initiative has launched in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – meaning British spies are now setting the international standard for fighting hackers. The scheme will be run by the Communications-Electronics Security Group (CESG), the information security arm of the GCHQ. It is an extension of the CESG's ongoing UK Certified Professional (CCP) scheme. The UK scheme launched in October 2012 and is designed to ensure security professionals meet a quality benchmark set by the CESG, assuring potential hirers of their anti-hacker abilities. The scheme ranks professionals at three levels of competency: Practitioner, Senior Practitioner, and Lead Practitioner. To date, the scheme has accredited 1,200 UK professionals in a variety of roles, including penetration testers and crypto custodians. Penetration testers are hackers companies hire to find holes in their defences. Crypto custodians are professionals that manage companies' use of encryption. Encryption is a security technology that scrambles digital information using specialist mathematics. It makes it so only people in possession of a specific unlock key or password can read the encrypted information. The pilot international scheme will be limited to security and information risk advisors (SIRA) and IA architects – the people who advise companies on how to protect their data and design their information security systems. The new US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand tests will be run by the APMG International examination body and CESG. BUSINESS INSIDER - VIA http://www.techinsider.io/gchq-has-expanded-its-security-training-scheme-to-run-in-the-us-canada-australia-and-new-zealand-2015-7 --------------------- COMMENT Thought this was interesting, but now I'm not that sure.  LOL IA = information assurance APM Group Ltd (APMG) =  global accreditation body, UK based (offices all over) More:  CCP - 'CESG Certified Professional' http://apmg-cyber.com/products/ccp-cesg-certified-professional

Google Compute Engine - Cloud Computing & Customer Held Encryption Keys / Red Herrings

Google has just done something that’s going to annoy the US and UK governments Business Insider     Alastair Stevenson, Business Insider     Jul. 29, 2015, 11:15 AM    2 UK Prime Minister David Cameron is not going to like this. Google has rolled out a security service for its business customers that could put a serious downer on the UK government’s plans to increase law enforcement’s surveillance powers. The service was revealed by Google product manager Leonard Law in a blog post and is currently in beta form. It will let businesses running the company's Google Compute Engine create their own encryption keys. Encryption is a security technology that scrambles digital information using specialist mathematics. It makes it so only people in possession of a specific unlock key or password can read the encrypted information. Google’s move may not sound like a big deal to people outside the technology community, but the implications for the move are pretty massive. What the Google Compute Engine is Google’s Compute Engine is the basis of the company's cloud computing platform. Cloud computing is a special type of technology that uses a network of remote servers hosted on the internet to run computer processes traditionally done on a device’s internal hardware. In theory, this means cloud computing customers can get high-powered computer performance, or run complex tasks beyond normal hardware’s capabilities without having to buy lots of equipment. As well as Google, which uses the tech to power many of its own services, such as YouTube, numerous big-name companies including Coca Cola, Best Buy, Rovio, Avaya and Ocado also use the Compute Engine. How it links to government surveillance The widespread use of Google’s cloud tech means it handles vast amounts of  user data. Data running through the platform can include things like customer records, account information and, at times, the user's geographic location. PRISM documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and GCHQ, have been siphoning vast amounts of web user information from Google's cloud platform – as well as many other cloud service providers. The move makes sense, as the Compute Engine’s large customer base lets the agencies collect data from multiple companies and services from one central source. A game of cat and mouse Google already encrypts services running through its Compute Engine by default. This partially protects customers as it means agencies like the NSA or GCHQ cannot read the data without knowing which encryption key was used. However, the tactic is not foolproof, as the NSA and GCHQ can use legal requests, such as letters sent under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to force Google to unlock or hand over unencrypted copies of the data. This issue was set to get even worse in the UK and US as both governments have hinted at plans to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Law enforcement agencies within the US have been lobbying for the US government to control business use of encryption since the PRISM leaks emerged. FBI director of counter-terrorism Michael Steinbach warned lawmakers that strong encryption technology allows terrorists "a free zone by which to recruit, radicalize, plot and plan," in June. UK prime minister David Cameron has hinted at plans to hamper the use of encryption. Cameron told Parliament he wants to "ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate," on June 6. How companies having their own keys will hamper surveillance Experts within the security community have argued that Google’s move will cause problems for the UK government’s plans. FireEye global technical lead Simon Mullis explained to Business Insider this is because it will make it so Google won’t be able to decrypt the data, even if ordered to. “Essentially the access to, ownership and management of the keys used to encrypt all data within Google Cloud is now handled by the end-customer," he said. "[This will] make it harder for any external agencies such as law enforcement or intelligence services to gain access to the decrypted data as there are fewer parties [people able to unlock the data] involved.” As a result, if law enforcement wanted access to the encrypted Compute Engine data, they would have to mount individual requests to each customer, a practice that would slow their surveillance operations. Business Insider has reached out to the UK Prime Minister's press team for comment on how custom encryption keys will impact Cameron's plans. Google is one of many technology companies working to fight the UK and US government’s surveillance plans. A group of 140 companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook, sent an open letter to President Obama in May urging him to reject the encryption proposals, fearing they would damage the US economy. Apple CEO Tim Cook claimed law enforcement’s hostility towards encryption is dangerous in June. SOURCE http://www.techinsider.io/google-has-offered-compute-engine-customers-advanced-encryption-powers-2015-7 --------------------- COMMENT 'Terrorists' is the big stick / leverage go-to for governments to demand access. If I were a company, I would prefer complete control of my own data.  Relying on cloud computing doesn't appeal, even though it may be cheaper.  And why would you trust any company that can unencrypt your data?  But I guess the advantage might be in passing the buck.  As in, if data is compromised, you can maybe blame it on the third party cloud host & they get lumped with compensation payouts? This is a good companion article regarding encryption offerings:   The Red Herring of Digital Backdoors and Key Escrow Encryption Bill Blunden EXTRACTS By concentrating on key escrow the CEOs of Silicon Valley are able to conjure up the perception of an adversarial relationship with federal agencies. This is absolutely crucial because tech companies need to face the public wearing a white hat. In the aftermath of the PRISM scandal, where C-suite types were caught colluding with the government on a first-name basis, American executives are frantically trying to convince people on behalf of quarterly revenue that they’re siding with consumers against spying. An interesting but fundamentally flawed narrative, given how much economic espionage the government conducts and how much spying corporate America does. Who do you think benefits from this sort of mass surveillance? All told it’s likely that private sector involvement henceforth will transpire off stage. Far removed from the encryption debate. Rather than forgo the benefits of aggressive spying, CEOs will merely conceal their complicity more deeply while making lots of noise for rubes about encryption. In this sense zero-day bugs offer the added benefit of plausible deniability. That is, backs doors based on zero-day bugs are vital spy tools that masquerade as mere accidents. Only fitting, one might conclude, as spies and magicians are kindred spirits performing artful tricks that beguile more susceptible members of the audience. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/29/the-red-herring-of-digital-backdoors-and-key-escrow-encryption/ I really like this guy's articles.

Tor Vulnerability - Traffic Analysis Identifies Guard Servers

Vulnerability could make Tor, the anonymous network, less anonymous     by  Barb Darrow     @gigabarb July 29, 2015, 5:27 PM EDT The bad news; MIT and QCRI researchers found a vulnerability in the Tor network. The good news: they also found a fix. The Tor network—used by activists, journalists, law enforcement, and yes, criminals—is famous for cloaking web surfers’ identities and locations. And, apparently, it contains a vulnerability that poses a risk to all that protective anonymity, according to researchers at MIT and the Qatar Computing Research Institute (QCRI). The good (or bad) news—depending on how you view Tor— is they say they’ve also come up with a fix to the problem that they will demonstrate at the Usenix Security Symposium next month, according to an MIT News story “Shoring up Tor.” An estimated 2.5 million people—including journalists, political activists, terrorists or just consumers who don’t want to share their browsing histories with Facebook or other commercial entities—use Tor daily. And that is why the network is of keen interest not only to “repressive” regimes like Russia and Iran but to governments a lot closer to home, including our own. Not to put too fine a point on this, but one person’s activist could be another person’s terrorist, but I digress. DigitalTrends has a good description of the Tor basics:     Tor works by anonymizing the transport of your data. Like an onion, Tor encrypts the data you send through the web in multiple layers. Your data is then “relayed” through other computers. Each relay sheds one layer then finally arrives at the source in full form. The software bounces users around a network of open connections run by volunteers all over the globe. This prevents people from spying on your Internet connection and discovering sites you visit. Tor scrambles information that could pinpoint your exact physical location. By using a Tor-configured browser, the user enters her request, and it is automatically swaddled in those encryption layers and is sent it to the next, randomly chosen machine that runs Tor. This machine, called “the guard,” peels off the first encryption layer and forwards the still-masked request on until it finally reaches a randomly chosen “exit” machine that strips off the final layer encryption to reveal the destination. Only the guard machine knows the sender and only the exit machine knows the requested site; no single computer knows both. The network also offers “hidden services” that enable an activist to aggregate sensitive news reports and make them available to select users, but not the world at large. That is, the archive is not searchable or available on the public Internet. The creation of those collection points, which involves the building of what Tor calls a “circuit” of machines, offered the researchers a way to snoop on Tor. By connecting a ton of their own machines to the network and then analyzing traffic, they were able to identify likely guard machines. From the MIT report:     The researchers showed that simply by looking for patterns in the number of packets passing in each direction through a guard, machine-learning algorithms could, with 99 percent accuracy, determine whether the circuit was an ordinary Web-browsing circuit, an introduction-point circuit, or a rendezvous-point circuit. Breaking Tor’s encryption wasn’t necessary.     Furthermore, by using a Tor-enabled computer to connect to a range of different hidden services, they showed that a similar analysis of traffic patterns could identify those services with 88 percent accuracy. That means that an adversary who lucked into the position of guard for a computer hosting a hidden service, could, with 88 percent certainty, identify it as the service’s host. The researchers, including Albert Kwon, an MIT graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science, and Mashael AlSabah, assistant professor of computer science at Qatar University, and a QCRI researcher, said the fix lies in obscuring data traffic patterns to and from the guard machines in a way that renders such “traffic fingerprinting” ineffective. If the network sends around enough dummy packets so that all the data sequences look the same to prying eyes, problem solved, and anonymity remains safe. SOURCE http://fusion.net/story/175068/sorry-the-way-you-type-is-exposing-your-identity-online-even-if-youre-browsing-anonymously/ --------------------- COMMENT Tor anonymity browser: search/request via Tor browser, wrapped in encryption layers first server = random 'guard' server (knows where request came from) next server = does not know location of request or request final server = random 'exit' server knows the request no single server knows both location & search/request runs data via network of open connections / servers run by volunteers all over globe  So: scrambles info that could pinpoint your physical location anonymises the transport of your data encrypts the data you send (& relays through the web in multiple layers) each relay sheds one layer relay finally arrives at source in full form Thought this was interesting.  Imagine the Tor people are adapting to the fake packet fix, whatever that is.   My reference to 'server' should probably read 'node' in the Tor network, I would think.  ------- ------- ------- Data transferred by computer is sent via 'packets'.  Due to size constraints, data sent out is broken up and reassembled at the destination. TCP / IP TCP/IP protocols guide how data is sent TCP = Transmission Control Protocol (reliability of data / checks data for errors & resends if required)  IP = Internet Protocol (more direct 'step closer' transmission of data) TCP/IP = two separate protocol - used together Most common TCP/IP protocols: HTTP  - b/w client (ie browser) & server / non-secure data transmissions HTTPS - b/w client & server / SECURE data transmissions - eg. credit card transaction data or other private data   FTP - b/w two or more computers:  one computer sends data to (or receives data from) another computer DIRECTLY. web client =  browser web server = receives client/browser requests & relays data back to web client/browser These are just notes for my benefit.  Hoping I have the info. straight.  LOL    --------------------- MORE MIT researchers figure out how to break Tor anonymity without cracking encryption http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/211169-mit-researchers-figure-out-how-to-break-tor-anonymity-without-cracking-encryption Researchers mount successful attacks against Tor network—and show how to prevent them http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mount-successful-tor-networkand.html

Cybersecurity: Darktrace

British cyber company Darktrace ramps up D.C. presence, investors take notice  By Aaron Gregg July 26 at 5:57 PM Follow @Post_AG Washington has always been a government town. But in recent years, the economic pinch of sequestration and other federal cutbacks has many local business leaders wondering where the next source of revenue will come from. Many see cybersecurity as a possible path away from government dependency, hoping that experts from the region’s intelligence community can find ways to sell their expertise to multi-national corporations that want to shore up their data. Darktrace, a Britain-based cybersecurity company that tries to spot internal threats by applying big data analysis to employees’ behavioral patterns, is one of the upstarts seeking to turn the region’s indigenous intelligence know-how into a commercial operation. The company announced Wednesday that it closed a $22.5 million round of financing from Summit Partners, a prominent venture capital firm. The company says it will use the capital to continue expanding its international footprint, hiring sales and marketing people to help broaden its customer base. Last month, the young firm opened a cyber operations center in Columbia, Md., to give it closer proximity to the wealth of talent sitting next door at the National Security Agency. “We’re taking the know-how that people from government agencies like the FBI, CIA and NSA have, and helping people in the commercial private sector to identify threats,” chief executive Nicole Eagan said. Eagan said the company’s plan is to approximate the so-called five eyes of the international spy community — a collaboration of government intelligence agencies from New Zealand, Australia, Britain, the United States and Canada — and sell it to the private sector. Right now Darktrace has offices in all five locations. “When you start to realize that cyber is a global problem, a cyber-threat can originate in one part of the world and culminate in another part of the work,” Eagan said. The company employs about 100 people, but its workforce is spread across 16 cities on four continents, with plans to expand into Latin America. [Related: Founded by spies and mathematicians, Darktrace isn’t your typical cyber-security firm] The company was founded two years ago by a union of Cambridge mathematicians and NSA veterans, with the help of close to $10 million in seed funding from Invoke Capital, a British venture capital firm backed by Mike Lynch, founder of British IT company Autonomy. Darktrace is one of many firms trying to spot data breaches in real time. The company’s Enterprise Immune System technology uses complex mathematical algorithms to take a behavioral “fingerprint” of each company’s day-to-day operations, created from seemingly mundane details such as when particular people tend to log in to certain systems and what they do there, where they work from and from what computer they log in. When something looks out of the ordinary, the company is notified in real time, and management gets a weekly update on the biggest threats it needs to worry about. “What Darktrace offers is an intelligent platform which learns what normal behavior is, and picks out what is unusual,” said Dan Raywood, an information security analyst at IT consultancy 451 Research. After spending a few years honing its product with early testers that included BT Group, a British telecommunications corporation, the company said it is done with research and development and is now focusing its efforts on getting to market. Today, Darktrace works with more than 100 corporations worldwide. It takes on customers by offering them a 30-day free trial, after which they are asked to commit to a three- or four-year contract. The company said more than 80 percent of the companies that try the free trial sign a contract. Darktrace declined to provide details of its financial performance. The company is operating in a crowded field with new firms popping up every day. “Whilst not totally unique, Darktrace has an interesting proposition at a time when spotting the anomaly is a key trend,” Raywood said.  Aaron Gregg covers the local economy for Capital Business, the Post’s local business section. He studied music (Jazz guitar) and political science at Emory University in Atlanta, and has a graduate degree in public policy from Georgetown. SOURCE http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/british-cyber-company-darktrace-ramps-up-dc-presence-investors-take-notice/2015/07/26/0fbef782-316d-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html --------------------- COMMENT LOL .. wonder if this is CIA venture capital? Cambridge makes me think of Cambridge Five and NSA's the mass surveillance mob that's been spying on European corporations and politicians. So is this some kind of UK intel meets US intel off the grid (and therefore opaque) Five Eyes clone?  Govt intelligence agencies aren't exactly transparent, so it probably hasn't got anything to do with being 'opaque'.  Maybe it's about having some legit cover, while keeping close tabs on big business? Or, .... I've got an over-active imagination.  LOL --------------------- Founded by spies and mathematicians, Darktrace isn’t your typical cybersecurity firm "... part of a contingent of cybersecurity executives accompanying British Prime Minister David Cameron on his recent trip to Washington, where the two countries announced the launch of a joint cyber-sharing initiative." http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-it/founded-by-spies-and-mathematicians-darktrace-isnt-your-typical-cybersecurity-firm/2015/02/15/eb71787e-b079-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html