In room-size metal boxes secure against electromagnetic leaks, the National Security Agency is racing to build a computer that could break nearly every kind of encryption used to protect banking, medical, business and government records around the world.According to documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the effort to build “a cryptologically useful quantum computer” — a machine exponentially faster than classical computers — is part of a $79.7 million research program titled “Penetrating Hard Targets.” Much of the work is hosted under classified contracts at a laboratory in College Park, Md.
WikiLeaks has sparked a debate about cybersecurity by publishing secret CIA documents. In a DW interview, its founder, Julian Assange, said he will publish more information – and he was critical of US tech companies.
There are no less than 16 different intelligence agencies in the United States. In 2017, they will cost US taxpayers some $70 billion (65 billion euros) – roughly twice Germany’s overall annual defense budget. The actual distribution of that sum among US intelligence services is classified, but revelations brought to light by Edward Snowden in 2013 suggest that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) receives the lion’s share.
In 2013, that sum was around $15 billion. Now the CIA, a highly funded agency tasked with gleaning state secrets from other countries, has a problem keeping its own secrets: On March 7, the whistleblower platform WikiLeaks began publishing CIA documents under the name “Vault 7.”
The National Security Agency (NSA) may have used Austrian networks “to map the internet”, including those of Telecom Austria (TA) and the University of Vienna.
According to a report in Der Standard, which cites documents leaked by former US intelligence employee, Edward Snowden, Austrian telecommunications networks may also have been used by the US secret service for espionage activities.
Through the use of the spy program “Treasure Map”, the NSA is attempting to fend off cyber espionage and computer attacks on any device connected to the internet, in any place and at any time.
For this the NSA has the data lines of Telecom Austria and Vienna University in their sights. However speakers from both institutions told Der Standard they had found no suspicious devices or data traffic.
Documents released by the NSA, which referred to the use of telecommunications network, TA, appeared in the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Monday.
According to TA spokesman Peter Schiefer, the NSA might use their data lines to screen the entire network.
A Vienna University network, part of the scientific ACOnet and internet switching node Vienna Internet exchange (ViX), were also explicitly mentioned in the secret service documents.
The node used by the University’s Central Information Service (ZID) was mentioned as a possible listening post in Austria shortly after the NSA surveillance scandal broke.
Over 100 companies, including Facebook, have set up their own technology. Michaela Bociurko from the Central Information Service says however that the University of Vienna has no evidence “of a secret service misusing their equipment” for their purposes.
Back in July it was revealed that the NSA had targeted an employee of the University of Salzburg. The internet address of a server operated by the man was found in the source code of the NSA surveillance program “XKeyscore”, with the user and network administrators of an anonymization network “gateway” being spied upon.
Leaked documents purport to show that NSA wiretapped current leader Francois Hollande as well as two former presidents.
The United States wiretapped France’s former presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as current leader Francois Hollande, according to documents released by WikiLeaks.
The spying spanned 2006 to 2012, French newspaper Liberation and the Mediapart website, said on Tuesday, quoting documents classed as “Top Secret” which include five reports from the US National Security Agency based on intercepted communications.
The most recent document is dated May 22, 2012, just days before Hollande took office, and reveals that the French leader “approved holding secret meetings in Paris to discuss the eurozone crisis, particularly the consequences of a Greek exit from the eurozone”.
Another document dated 2008 was titled “Sarkozy sees himself as only one who can resolve world financial crisis”.
Hollande called a meeting of his defence council to discuss the reports on Wednesday.
Ever since documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden showed in 2013 that the NSA had been eavesdropping on the mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, it had been understood that the US had been using the digital spying agency to intercept the conversations of allied politicians.
Still, the new revelations are bound to cause diplomatic embarrassment for the Americans, even though allies have been spying on allies for thousands of years.
Hollande said last year that he discussed his concerns about NSA surveillance with President Barack Obama during a visit to the US, and they patched up their differences.
Spy scheme reviewed
After the Merkel disclosures, Obama ordered a review of NSA spying on allies, after officials suggested that senior White House officials had not approved many operations that were largely on auto-pilot.
After the review, American officials said Obama had ordered a halt to spying on the leaders of allied countries, if not their aides.
Neither Hollande’s office nor Washington would comment on the new leaks. Contacted Tuesday by AFP, Hollande’s aide said:
“We will see what it is about.”
US State Department spokesman John Kirby meanwhile said: “We do not comment on the veracity or content of leaked documents.”
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said he was confident the documents were authentic, noting that WikiLeaks previous mass disclosures have proven to be accurate.
Russian MP Ilya Ponomarev
The Russian lawmaker kicked out of the country speaks out about Putin, Snowden, and a Russian collapse
In Vladimir Putin’s quest to amass more power, the Russian government has become increasingly corrupt and ever more dangerous for critics and political activists.
Case in point — the suspicious murder of Boris Nemtsov as he walked home across a busy bridge in Moscow almost two weeks ago.
We recently sat down with Ilya Ponomarev — a representative in the lower house of the Russian Parliament who has been banned from Russia for his opposition to Putin — and got his take on what’s going on in Russia today.
Ponomarev believes that the people who killed Nemtsov were affiliated with one of Russia’s state security forces, and says that his murder was meant as a “message to Russian elites… and a message to the West.”
Yet, he thinks that in general Russians are closer aligned to Americans than they are to Europeans and that change will come to the country as early as 2017:
“The actual uprising might start in 2017… We will have major elections in 2016, and that is when economic and financial resources might get depleted by that time because of sanctions and issues with financial liquidities. All the problems will mount and be at their height in 2017. We need to be ready and we need to present Russia with a clear program, with a clear vision of Russia after Putin.”
Ponomarev is a former president of Yukos Oil, the former oil and gas giant that was effectively shut down in 2007 by the Russian government, which redistributed its assets to state companies.
He was elected to the Russian State Duma in 2007, and was the only member who voted against the annexation of Crimea last year. The final vote in Russia’s lower house was 445 to 1. Colleagues warned him beforehand, saying things like “Putin will crush you,” and “Don’t ruin your career.”
The year before, he was the only member of the Duma not to support Russia’s anti-gay “propaganda” law. Eventually, in August 2014, Ponomarev and several of his aides were banned from Russia (along with several of his aides) and falsely charged with funneling money out of the Skolkovo Foundation — an organization that supports high-tech startups — to finance protests against Putin.
Though he has been banned from Russia, he is still an active member of the Duma. He says that since his constituency voted him in, they are the only ones with the power to revoke his mandate.
Speaking before an audience at the Commonwealth Club, the bearded and battered politico spoke about Putin with disdain. He believes that Putin “wants people to negotiate with him and he wants to have the tradeoffs here and there and spheres of influence.” To Ponomarev, Putin is a creature of the last century.
However, throughout the night, Ponomarev talked with a glimmer in his eye — his wife, whom he had not seen for months, had finally reunited with him after clearing up a visa problem in Bulgaria.
We talked to Ilya Ponomarev before his presentation. Here’s what he had to say:
The following is a transcript of our conversation with Ponomarev; it has been edited for clarity and length.
BUSINESS INSIDER: Who do you think killed Boris Nemtsov?
ILYA PONOMAREV: I think it was somebody very close to Putin. I have doubts that it was his direct order, although he has created this very system which killed [Nemtsov]. I think it was one of the clans who are fighting for influence on Putin. And they want to trigger instability and be those saviors to offer a solution to everything.
BI: Are you worried that what happened to Nemtsov might happen to you?
IP: We have a Russian proverb — “Those who are doomed to be sunk will never be hanged.” I think that you shouldn’t run away from what is in front of you. You should do what you have to do, and leave to it. What can you do? Hire bodyguards? Stop doing anything? It will not save you either.
BI: Are politicians scared of Putin? Are there people looking at what you and Nemtsov have done and being inspired, in that sense?
IP: Some politicians are scared and some are extremely apologetic, actually. And I feel very sorry for this because some people who are like my friends from the left flank, they praise Putin because they see him as the fighter against American imperialism — which he is not. You know, why would you select between American imperialism and Russian imperialism?
To my mind, it’s exactly the same thing. Others — conservatives — they say ‘Oh, Putin is a real leader, he’s a true man, he stays [firm] on his position, he’s not like this weak Obama.’ And also they are very much wrong. Because Putin is not a strong man, he is actually a man that put himself into a corner, and he’s fighting and biting from that corner, being very weak.
BI: Has anyone else you know been fined, kidnapped, or murdered?
IP: We have a lot of people – journalists – that were murdered in Russia. But my own situation is pretty unique. I haven’t seen my wife for half a year. She lives now in Bulgaria and couldn’t get her here because of visa [problems].
[Editor’s note: Since 1992, there have been 56 journalists killed in Russia.]
BI: How would you best describe your political ideology?
IP: The best description would be that I am a progressive libertarian.
BI: Which political figures do you look up to, people that you base your ideas upon?
IP: I think that my political position of course is very much influenced by thinkers of the left, and those are different people. I pay a lot of attention to what was written by Marx and by Lenin, but also by modern leftists like Wallenstein. I very much pay a lot of attention to what has been written by Noam Chomsky. We have such thinkers in Russia as well, like Boris Kagarlitsky, who is a good friend.
My political tradition is one the left, but I think that more modern leftists, they sometimes get stuck with this vision of large government and social benefits and everything and that’s against what is my position, because I think that the ultimate vision of Marx, Engels and those people was to eliminate government entities and to give as much power to the people.
And in modern standing that means direct democracy, that means all the power to the communities, it means gradually eliminating all government oppression on the society. And 100 years ago, leftists’ major allies were labor unions.
In the world of today, I think that entrepreneurs are the new emerging ruling class — I identify it as the startup class. That’s the new proletariat of the 21st century. These are the people that are the drivers of that change.
BI: How is it that you’re still an active member of Duma?
IP: From the point of view of legislation of the Constitution, my mandate has been given by my constituency. So it’s only my constituency that can revoke my mandate. So until the next election, nobody is supposed to do anything. The next election is in 2016.
BI: When was the last time you were elected?
IP: Last time in 2011. The first time I was elected was in 2007. Originally it was a 4-year term and now it’s a 5-year term. If I would not be able to campaign, I would lose my post.
They can use such reasons like if I’m doing business, then they could justify that I am violating my status. But I’m cautious not to do it. They are looking through a magnifying glass from the outside.
I have a group of very loyal people. We are in the minority very much, basically 10 to 15% of the population that supports what we do. It’s temporary. I think that the high numbers for Putin, they will pass as soon as economic tensions mount.
And then the whole situation will be flipped. It’s important not to alienate people, not to receive negative reaction on yourself but we have to wait a little bit. Bolsheviks in 1914 were a dying sect, the only ones against the war, but just two and a half years later, they came to power.
BI: Russia is obviously a surveillance state. That being said, America has its own conundrums: NSA phone tapping, Edward Snowden, CIA torture tapes. How is the United States different from Russia in this regard?
IP: I think that there are excesses that exist in all societies. I won’t say it’s normal to have them, but it’s natural to have them. I’m watching very closely…what Snowden has done. I don’t know him personally. I wanted to talk to him, but all of the security people didn’t allow me to. But I think that he took the wrong approach to a very right thing which he was doing. Just the implementation was wrong. There was a clear platform to what he was doing, although of course that there were some mistakes made.
I think that it’s inevitable if society will be run by old-timers who are still in the paradigm of the past, so I think the real way to resolve this is if the entrepreneurs go into politics and gradually take over and push for their agenda. You named a bunch of privacy issues which are at this stage secondary to me.
The primary issue is the competition between Uber and traditional taxis, or contradictions between FDA and 23 and me. That, I think is most important. And I think that we are right now — the society — is living in the Facebook era and the political system is still in the 19th century prior to the Industrial era.
Why for God’s sake do you need to be socially liberal and economically conservative? Or to be economically market-oriented but at the same time socially, extremely conservative? Why can’t you be free in both dimensions?
BI: Now let’s bring our conversation to a global scale. Especially now with ISIS looming large close to Russia, what is Russia’s end-goal in the Middle East?
IP: I don’t think there is a conscious and strategic play there. Putin is not a strategist at all. He has brilliant tactics, but he is a very bad strategist overall. And I think he is acting very opportunistically there, just to play the cards with America. He was very proud of himself when he convinced us to give up on chemical weapons so that it could be played down and prevent an invasion and that was very helpful for Obama because Obama saved his face and didn’t order airstrikes at that very moment.
Putin was extremely proud. That’s the kind of thing Putin does. Generally, he thinks of himself as Christian. I don’t think he is, but he pretends to think that he is. In terms of his ideology he’s more like Bush Jr. But he’s less ideological. He’s [thinking] more ‘how to stay in power.’
BI: What is it about Putin then?
IP: He’s just maneuvering. He wants to be respected. He wants to be an important player in global politics. He wants people to negotiate with him and he wants to have the tradeoffs here and there and spheres of influence. He’s very much a person of the 20th century in the global and geopolitical space.
BI: Stratfor predicted in its recent decade report that the Russian Federation will disintegrate into an archipelago of loosely-connected and more localized entities over the next decade as the ruble plunges, the price of oil declines, and the country’s politics get crazier. Do you think Russia is essentially falling apart? What will be of the Russian Federation in the next 10 years?
IP: Russia can fall apart. It’s not because of the oil prices…. It’s because what sticks a country together is a common interest of people. It has to be economically and socially profitable — beneficial — for people to be together. They should understand how they benefit from a large country. And if they start to feel like a large country is a source of problem, then the country collapses as the Soviet Union collapsed.
And right now, I see a lot of alarming trends inside Russia, especially in Siberia, which I represent in the Parliament. People start to ask questions: If we mine all the natural resources — if we have all the oil, all the gas, all the coal, all the gold, all the diamonds — why the hell do we need central Russia?
They are just eating at our resources. Without Moscow having a response for this, it would face very nasty questions such as one that was asked during my recent reelection campaign — it actually became a slogan of my campaign — “Stop feeding Moscow.”
BI: This mindset is similar to that of the Tatars. How is it different?
IP: With Tatars, the situation is a little bit more complex. They are geographically very isolated so they need the rest of Russia. When they pump oil, they need pipelines to deliver it so they need those connections. We in Siberia don’t need those connections. The only thing which actually sticks us together is the cultural similarities and the relatives that are on both sides of the Ural mountains.
BI: Last question — if Putin were standing in front of you at this very moment, what would you say to him? The first words out of your mouth are…
IP: There is nothing I can say. “Goodbye, Mr. Putin,” that’s the only thing I can say.
We need to convince him that if he makes the decision to go, that we are ready to trade his personal security for peaceful resignation. That’s very important because we’re all afraid that he will stick to power to his deathbed and just kill a lot of people along the way. If he is willing to go, we shall buy him an island in the Caribbean or in the Pacific Ocean with nice girls — like a separate country for him.
He’s very much afraid of leaving. Because he is formally right now in his first term, so has another 8 years from now. Legally, he has created all the mechanisms for himself. He’s a lawyer.
Confused about the NSA revelations? Do you wonder how the activities of GCHQ and the NSA affect you? Why spies have been monitoring Facebook, Gmail and Skype? And even if are being watched online, how does that affect what we do online? This animation, narrated by Jemima Kiss, explains what the disclosures mean for all of USA
The subject of “Citizenfour” isn’t much in the news these days, though his admirers on the left and his fans among Libertarians remain united in admiration of him as a heroic whistleblower.
His name would emerge this week in a noteworthy speech by Britain’s former chief spymaster and head of MI-6, Sir John Sawers, who said, in an address at Kings College, that thanks to Edward Snowden “all of us, you and me here tonight, are more at risk from terrorism and cyberattack.”
Technology companies, he explained, have—as a result of the Snowden leaks—scaled back their quiet cooperation with intelligence agencies.
The name will come up again this weekend. “Citizenfour” is an Oscar-nominated documentary, and one that views Mr. Snowden as—to put it mildly—a heroic figure.
It is Mr. Snowden’s own view of himself, though, that provides the film, which is cluttered with posturing and speechmaking, with its few humanly telling moments.
After you’ve sat through yet one more polemic on government surveillance as the prime threat to the survival of democracy in our world—whether delivered by journalist Glenn Greenwald, or by activists holding forth at an organization named, unforgettably,
Digital Anti-Repression Workshop—it’s a relief to get back to Citizenfour, the name Mr. Snowden called himself in December 2012, when he first contacted Mr. Greenwald of the Guardian.
Unable to develop a secure method of contact with the Guardian journalist, Mr. Snowden moved on to filmmaker Laura Poitras, a kindred political spirit, to whom he outlines his plans to deliver classified NSA documents, proof of continuing mass surveillance.
Since the amount of classified material he provided would require a tremendous amount of reporting, he advised, it would be important to have the help of a journalist like Mr. Greenwald.
By June 2013, after much solemn talk and urgently detailed testaments to the high principles that impel each of them to this mission, Citizenfour, the filmmaker and the Guardian journalist all finally meet at a Hong Kong hotel.
The filmmaker is soon filming, the first columns based on the Snowden material—the proofs of widespread government data mining—are in print in the Guardian and the Washington Post, and their impact is instantaneous and explosive.
The Snowden of the film’s early scenes has no fears—he is resolute in his assurance that what he did was done for the highest of motives. His pronouncements are calm, though there’s a telltale glow of excitation about him as the impact of the leaks begins to be clear.
He’s modest enough to say he has no interest in being the center of the story—but he has no intention of hiding his identity, either, he informs his interviewers.
Why should he be forced to hide? Why should he skulk around as though he had done something wrong? Curious questions, under the circumstances.
His attitude leads to an inspired strategy session with the chief disseminator of the leaks, Mr. Greenwald.
“The fearlessness and the f— you to the bullying tactics,” an impassioned Mr. Greenwald declares, “that has got to be completely pervading everything we do.”
“I think that’s brilliant,” says Mr. Snowden. “Your principles on this, I love. I can’t support them enough.”
It’s agreed: He wouldn’t hide, not even for one second; he would be in the U.S. government’s face. That would be, as Mr. Greenwald points out, “the ultimate standing up to them.”
As it turned out, the hero of “Citizenfour” would be, within a few days, grimly focused on finding a way to hide—he’s shown worriedly looking in the hotel-room mirror figuring out how to disguise his appearance.
He’s appeared on television screens all over the world, including those in Hong Kong—and by now he’s a far cry from the man who assured interviewers he would be ready to take whatever comes, even prison.
That the film shows Mr. Snowden panicked at the possibility that he could be extradited to the U.S., where he faces three felony charges, isn’t surprising.
What is striking is the apparent shock—and anger—with which he (as well as many of his aforementioned sympathizers) reacted to the filing of charges against him.
He had stolen, by the NSA count, some 1.7 million classified documents, had leaked hundreds of thousands of them to reporters while retaining the rest—yet he was shocked that the government had found cause to charge him with crimes.
His U.S. passport revoked, Mr. Snowden in due course found refuge in Moscow, where he remains to this day, having been granted a three-year—renewable—residency permit.
The whereabouts of the remaining hundreds of thousands of stolen classified files that have not as yet been disseminated are less certain.