Tag: FBI

Was Zimmerman Guilty?

On November 1, 2019

In an attempt to bring RSA encryption-level security to the masses, Zimmerman released Pretty Good Privacy(PGP). But in his attempt to do so, Zimmerman had one large issue: The FBI had taken notice of his activities and were frightened. They were frightened because they believed that they would not longer be able to wiretap criminals and bring them to justice in Zimmermans’s attempt to bring NSA-proof security to the masses. Zimmer eventually published the PGP onto the internet through a friend, which the FBI deemed as “exporting munitions” because a foreign government or hostile power could have easily accessed it. This remains problematic for a number of reasons, but ultimately Zimmerman was wrong in publishing software on the internet because he did so with the intent to deceive the US government and provide top grade security for all, law-abiding citizens and criminals alike.

When anyone publishes anything on the internet, they should be able to face the consequences of their action. We’ve seen in the present how past videos or texts can come back to derail an established politician’s career. Anything posted on the web never truly disappears, and people need to be aware of this fact. Critics state that because Zimmer hadn’t actually sent the software to a foreign government, he shouldn’t have been pursued by the FBI; but the fact remains, Zimmerman published his work in an attempt to deceive the US government. And in fact, another more compelling argument remains: if country A sells weapons to country B, and country B is currently engaged in a genocide and A is aware of this fact, then Country A is at least partially to blame for providing the tools with which that genocide occurs. A key component of this argument is that those who provide the tools must know that their tools can and will be used to enact harm, and Zimmerman certainly fell true to this.

In all, this question is one that is difficult to answer, but if cryptanalysts publish software that has circumvented the government’s wished and that they know will be used for harm, such as Zimmerman, then such cryptanalysts are at least partially responsible for the consequences that ensue.

The Hidden Meaning Behind Words

By Jojo

On September 26, 2018

In Student Posts

The display in Newseum raised the matter of privacy v. security, with a special focus on FBI and its increased security measures after the 9/11 attack. The issue posed striking similarities with the story of the Little Brother, as the DHS increased the scale of its surveillance after a terrorist attack on the Bay bridge.

What I found interesting is the link people drew between words. For instance, surveillance means security and privacy means liberty. On the other hand, increased surveillance measures doesn’t necessarily mean that safety is ensured. The loss of privacy to social media and websites such as Google/Amazon might not have such a strong connection to liberty.

If we discuss the terms surveillance and security at face value, they are both neutral words. Although there is a negative connotation associated with the word itself, surveillance without further action on the information obtained can seem harmless at times. However, as we discussed about the podcast, surveillance acts like a Panopticon, altering people’s behaviors as they know they’re being watched.

The wording on the display board itself is also interesting. It uses the words privacy and security instead of privacy and surveillance. On the other hand, on the bottom it raises the question: what would you give up to “feel” safer, this time using the word “feel” instead of “be”.

America on Privacy vs Security: Give up Everything?

By Carson

On September 25, 2018

In Student Posts

The Newseum’s “Voice your Opinion” poster on privacy versus security definitely drew some interesting opinions. While some chose not to take the activity seriously, some of the insight was actually very constructive.

On the security side, most people did not elaborate on their statement. I read a few that were essentially, “Give up privacy for security.” There were also several hipster comments that were about spreading love and not evil/hate. Two particular comments stood out to me, however. One stated to “take away as much as necessary to feel safe,” and the other stated, “Everything, we have nothing to hide.” The first thing that I would love to know is, who made the comment? What background do they come from? Have they always lived in the United States? I feel like one’s upbringing has much to do with formulating an opinion on this matter. Regardless though, these two comments really shocked me because I find it very hard to believe anyone would be okay with the government having total control. In my opinion, the first comment is very nieve. There is literally a part of our brain, called the amygdala, that processes emotions such as fear. I wonder if this person would next suggest that we sever this part of our brain until we do not “feel” at all. There is no way to totally prevent uncertain/unfavorable emotions such as safety – even in a Utopia.

The privacy comments on the poster were equally as interesting. For instance, one person said, “Living life is an honor, don’t take our freedom away.” I appreciated this quote for its simplicity. Life really is a privilege, but one can only take advantage of it if they are free to do so. Which ties into Benjamin Franklin quote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This quote is very interesting because he had no way of knowing anything about technology, yet he created such an iconic phrase that can be applied to it.

Newseum Privacy vs Security Debate

By lala1

On September 25, 2018

In Student Posts

I thought that this photo was very interesting since it captured a lot of the same thoughts that was as a class had after reading Big Brother. It also reminded me a lot of those word maps/clouds that show the frequency of words in a given text. I saw the word privacy pop up a lot, but I didn’t see so much about Security. Another very interesting thing on the board that was kind of hard to read was the Benjamin Franklin quote. He said that “those who give up essential liberty for a little bit of security deserve neither security nor Liberty.” I thought that this was a very powerful quote that relates to the topic, and I also think that Cory Doctorow would very much agree with it. I think that the governmental agencies that collect data get a bad reputation to a certain extent. I think that it is very unlikely that I have an FBI agent devoted to monitoring my life. What is more likely is that my data is being used to create a large sample of data which may be helpful to them. I forget the name of the trick, and I can’t find it online, but I know that in accounting if the number of 1’s that start the numbers in the books is off by a few standard deviations, then it is likely that someone has cooked the books. Terrorism may be much more difficult, but there may be situations like these where it is useful to have metadata.

Has the United States discovered signs of a terrorist attack by bin Laden before 9/11?

By Hanqing

On September 24, 2018

In Student Posts

This is not the case. Many of the information disclosed after 9/11 show that the US intelligence agencies are aware of Osama bin Laden. It is only because the US intelligence agencies have complex systems, serious internal consumption, lack of unified command, cooperation and scheduling, etc. Take the possession of Osama bin Laden seriously. For example, the FBI agent John O’Neill was the person directly responsible for investigating Osama bin Laden before 9/11, but he eventually retired from the FBI and became a victim of a terrorist attack on September 11. It can be said that John O’Neill has an almost crazy obsession with investigating bin Laden. In order to investigate Osama bin Laden, John O’Neill needs a lot of intelligence support, but the Bureau of Investigation did not give enough support to O’Neill’s work. The FBI has always been ruthless for employees who have a distinct personality, ambitious and dare to challenge mainstream thinking.

John O’Neill can be said to be the closest person to Osama bin Laden before the 9/11, but he was ruined by the FBI and other intelligence agencies’ endless internal consumption. In 2004, the investigation report issued by the Independent Investigation Committee of the 9/11 Congress showed The CIA and the National Security Bureau have long mastered the information that John O’Neill needs, but refused to share it. This mechanism for refusing to share information among government agencies comes from the Federal Criminal Procedure Regulations, which prohibits the disclosure of any material related to criminal investigations. Later, this rule was restricted by the FBI to limit the investigators of this Council. Means: It is strictly forbidden for anyone to share information, even for agents in this Council. Like the Bureau of Investigation, the CIA has also turned this barrier between its own and the Bureau of Investigation into a system. The CIA believes that sharing intelligence may undermine “sensitive sources and means”. The National Security Agency directly limits the transmission of important information. Agents of other agencies can only see brief reports on intelligence, and cannot obtain the original monitoring records of the National Security Bureau.

From these details, we can see that the main part is that the United State didn’t make a very comprehensive protection.
Comprehensive protection