TAG | internet
Fast Company has a good article laying out the state of events regarding the Internet in Syria.
Here is the short version. Syria has changed tactics from keeping the Internet available but highly monitored and surveilled, to turning off apparently absolutely all Internet connectivity within the country.
Syria was unique in its cyber response to their Arab Spring uprisings. Rather than lock down the Internet, they actually un-blocked some popular social media sites. They did this because of the incredible surveillance capabilities this makes possible. Business Week has a nice story on this aspect.
The change of face would seem to have a few possible reasons.
1) Dissident tactics like encryption are making the surveillance less effective.
2) The damage from dissident publishing is greater than the value of the intelligence.
3) The Syrian government is about to do something really nasty and they want to make it very hard to report about it.
We shall see. The fact that the Syrian government appears to have turned off even its own Internet access suggests that they are worried about any leaks through the wall, which makes reason 3 seem more probable.
The Oxford Deluxe dictionary app requests access to your twitter account when it is installed. In some cases it then uses that account to post hundreds of identical tweets saying that you will pledge to stop pirating software.
It is not exactly clear what criteria the software uses, but obviously there is a lot of backlash going on.
Another argument for taking great care about what applications and services you allow to take control of your social media accounts.
The number of information requests coming to Google from governments around the world is growing fast. It is up 55% for the first half of 2012 vs. the first half of 2010. The linked article has some nice graphs showing the trend.
It is interesting to note that the US leads the world with over a third of the total requests, followed by India then Brazil.
The other even faster trend is in takedown requests. Since they are s search engine, not a host, this is really pure censorship. It is up 88% between the first half of 2011 and the first half of 2012. That is a true hockey stick. A lot of it appears to be trying to suppress criticism of government or government activities.
The more such information is gathered, the more important it is to take control of your own personal privacy.
Welcome to Anonymizer’s inaugural episode of The Privacy Podcast. Each month, we’ll be posting a new episode focusing on security, privacy, and tips to protect you online.
Today, I talk about non-technical ways your online accounts can be compromised, focusing on email address and password reuse, security questions, and using credit card numbers as security tokens. In part two, I give power user tips for getting the most out of your Anonymizer Nyms account.
Hope you enjoy the first episode in our monthly series of podcasts. Please leave feedback and questions in the comments section of this post.
Download the transcript here
Courthouse News Service reports that a virginia judge has ruled Facebook “Likes” are not protected speech.
The case was related to employees of the Hampton VA sheriff’s office who “Liked” the current sheriff’s opponent in the last election. After he was re-elected, he fired many of the people who had supported his opponent.
The judge ruled that posts on Facebook would have been protected, but not simple Likes.
This article from Threatpost discusses a study out of CMU of Chinese censorship of their home grown social networking websites.
Now that they are blocking most of the western social media sites entirely, the focus of censorship is internal. Obviously blocking the internal sites as well would defeat the purpose, so they are selectively deleting posts instead. This study looks at the rate at which posts with sensitive key words are removed from the services.
It clearly shows how censorship can be taken to the next level when the censor controls the websites as well as the network.
Thanks to a PrivacyBlog reader for pointing me to this article: Blackhat SEO – Esrun » Youtube privacy failure
It looks like it is easy to find thumbnail images from YouTube videos that have been marked private.
If you have any such videos, go back and check that you are comfortable with the information in the thumbnails being public, or delete the video completely.
There has been a lot of attention recently to the arrest of an alleged LulzSec hacker after his anonymity was compromised by the anonymity service he was using, HideMyAss.com. Some articles on the event are here, here and the provider’s explanation here.
The reason this company was able to compromise the privacy of their user was that they had logs of user activity. They know what IP address is assigned to each user and can use that to attribute any activity back to the real identity of the person behind the account.
The real problem with logs is that they exist or they don’t. You can’t keep logs only for “bad users” but not for responsible “good users” because even if it was possible to identify them as such in advance, you would not find anything like agreement about who should fall in which category.
Many operators of privacy services, including myself, feel very strongly that such tools should be usable in countries like China to circumvent the censorship and surveillance there. Such actions are certainly illegal for the user, and probably for the provider. While being a UK company and only responding to UK court orders, they were “forced” to expose the identity of a person in the US who was then arrested by the FBI.
I don’t know enough about this case to debate whether or not this person is guilty or deserved to be arrested. My concern is that this case has demonstrated that anyone who can cause a UK court order to be severed against this company can expose their users. It also makes them a target for hacking, social engineering, infiltration and other attacks which could gain access to these logs without a UK court order.
As a general rule, if information exists and people want it, there is a very good chance it will escape, if only by accident.
I founded this company, Anonymizer.com, and I personally stand behind our services. We have clear privacy policies, we keep no logs of the surfing activities of our users, we have no way of identifying what user may have visited what website. We have an unblemished record of providing robust privacy since 1995.
As I have said in many previous posts, it all comes down to trust. If you don’t know who is providing the service, and don’t have the ability to research their history and gauge their integrity, you should not use that service.
Back in February, British Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech where he strongly opposed the censorship and crack down on protesters in Egypt.
For decades, some have argued that stability required highly controlling regimes, and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk. So, the argument went, countries like Britain faced a choice between our interests and our values. And to be honest, we should acknowledge that sometimes we have made such calculations in the past. But I say that is a false choice.
As recent events have confirmed, denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability, rather the reverse. Our interests lie in upholding our values – in insisting on the right to peaceful protest, in freedom of speech and the internet, in freedom of assembly and the rule of law. But these are not just our values, but the entitlement of people everywhere; of people in Tahrir Square as much as Trafalgar Square.
Now, with the riots in England he feels that restricting access to social media, and censoring free speech is necessary to maintain order.
Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers. Police were facing a new circumstance where rioters were using the BlackBerry Messenger service, a closed network, to organise riots. We’ve got to examine that and work out how to get ahead of them.
It is easy to condemn censorship in others, but it seems expedient when one is trying to control one’s own population. When in power, the difference between justifiable actions and tyranny is largely a matter of “us” vs “them”. “We” are good and would not abuse this power while “they” use censorship to keep the boot of oppression on their people.
The trouble is, it is very hard to know when one has moved past the tipping point, and powerful self justification comes easily to intelligent leaders and their advisors. As has been said many times “no man is the villein of his own story”.
This is a Rubicon I hope the UK can hold back from crossing.
Researchers analyzing results from the ICSI Netalyzer project have found ISPs redirecting traffic bound for Yahoo! and Bing to third parties like Paxfire, Barefruit, and Golog. According to this EFF article:
Netalyzr’s measurements show that approximately a dozen US Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including DirecPC, Frontier, Hughes, and Wide Open West, deliberately and with no visible indication route thousands of users’ entire web search traffic via Paxfire’s web proxies.
This appears to be done by returning the IP address of the intercepting server rather than the true IP address when you do a DNS lookup of the server (www.yahoo.com for example). Your browser then connects to Paxfire or one of the other companies, rather than yahoo, allowing them to collect data on your activity and possibly modify the results.
There are some things you can do to protect yourself. If your connection to the website is using SSL, or if you have a VPN, your ISP can not intercept or modify your connection.
If you are running FireFox you can install the “HTTPS Everywhere” extension, which will ensure that your connection uses SSL for most of the most popular sites on the Internet.
Using Anonymizer Universal will ensure 100% of your traffic goes over an encrypted connection which will prevent this kind of interception for all websites.
I encourage all of you to visit the ICSI Netalyzer website to test your connection and your ISP for this kind of interception, and to contribute information for their research to detect this kind of strange and/or nefarious activity.