Timesdelhi.com

July 18, 2018
Category archive

Russia

Putin proposes a joint cybersecurity group with the US to investigate Russian election meddling

in Delhi/Government/India/Politics/Russia/Russian election interference/Security/TC/Trump administration by

Over the course of Monday’s controversial Helsinki summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin pushed an agenda that would ostensibly see the U.S. and Russia working side by side as allies. The two countries make stranger bedfellows than ever as just days prior, Trump’s own Department of Justice indicted 12 Russian intelligence officials for the infamous 2016 Democratic National Committee hack.

Nonetheless, the Russian president revived talks of a joint group between the U.S. and Russia dedicated to cybersecurity matters. For anyone with the security interests of the U.S. at heart, such a proposal, which Trump endorsed in a tweet one year ago, would truly be a worst-case scenario outcome of the puzzlingly cozy relationship between the two world leaders.

“Once again, President Trump mentioned the issue of the so-called interference of Russia [during] the American elections and I had to reiterate things I said several times…,” Putin said in Helsinki.

“Any specific material, if such things arise, we are ready to analyze together. For instance, we can analyze them through the joint working group on cyber security, the establishment of which we discussed during our previous contacts.”

Putin added that Russia favors “continued cooperation in counter-terrorism and maintaining cyber security.”

“The most recent example is their operational cooperation within the recently concluded World Football Cup,” Putin said. “In general, the contacts among the special services should be put to a system-wide basis should be brought to a systemic framework. I reminded President Trump about the suggestion to re-establish the working group on anti-terrorism.”

After a loud bipartisan rebuke followed Trump’s proposal of an “impenetrable [cybersecurity] unit” with Russia last year, the U.S. president walked his comments back a few steps, suggesting that they were hypothetical. Whether it ever materializes or not, the whole idea is a somewhat stunning departure from national security norms and one that would be broadly decried as letting the fox into the henhouse, given that evidence establishing Russia as a cyber adversary of the U.S., both currently and historically, is plentiful.

In 2017, the U.S. intelligence community issued such an assertion in no uncertain terms:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

The report notes that this information is sourced broadly, stating that “insights into Russian efforts—including specific cyber operations—and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources.”

CrowdStrike, the security firm involved in investigating the 2016 DNC hack, uncontroversially included Russia on a list of “notable nation-state adversaries” of the U.S. alongside China, North Korea and Iran.

Just days ago, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats cautioned that “warning lights are blinking red again” when it comes to attacks on federal, state and local U.S. entities. Coats named Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as cyber aggressors against the U.S., adding that “Russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor, no question.”

It’s unclear what, if anything, the U.S. would stand to gain from such an arrangement, though it would stand to lose quite a bit, given the likelihood that Russia’s interest in influencing U.S. elections is ongoing. Putin’s comments in Helsinki indicate the spirit of such an effort lives on, misguided as it may be.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Department of Justice indicts 12 Russian intelligence officers for Clinton email hacks

in Delhi/democratic national committee/department of justice/email hacking/Guccifer 2.0/Hillary Clinton/India/Jeff Sessions/Politics/Russia/Russian election interference/TC/Trump/United States by

Just days before President Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Department of Justice has leveled new charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers who allegedly hacked the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton .

The charges, released by Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who’s leading the investigation into Russian election tampering because of the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the investigation.

In January of last year, the intelligence community issued a joint statement affirming that Russia had indeed tampered with the U.S. presidential elections in 2016.

Now the investigation is beginning to release indictments. Three former campaign aides for the president’s campaign have already plead guilty, and the president himself is under investigation by Special Investigator Robert Mueller for potential obstruction of justice.

According to the indictment the Russians used spearphishing attacks to gain access to the network of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Rosenstein also said that Russia’s military intelligence service was also behind the leaks that distributed the information online under the aliases Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.

Read the full indictment below.

 

News Source = techcrunch.com

What we can learn from the 3,500 Russian Facebook ads meant to stir up U.S. politics

in 2016 election/Delhi/Democrats/elections/Government/Honest Ads Act/India/Politics/privacy/Russia/Russian election interference/TC by

On Thursday, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released a massive new trove of Russian government-funded Facebook political ads targeted at American voters. While we’d seen a cross section of the ads before through prior releases from the committee, the breadth of ideological manipulation is on full display across the more than 3,500 newly released ads — and that doesn’t even count still unreleased unpaid content that shared the same divisive aims.

After viewing the ads, which stretch from 2015 to late 2017, some clear trends emerged.

Russia focused on black Americans

Many, many of these ads targeted black Americans. From the fairly large sample of ads that we reviewed, black Americans were clearly of particular interest, likely in an effort to escalate latent racial tensions.

Many of these ads appeared as memorials for black Americans killed by police officers. Others simply intended to stir up black pride, like one featuring an Angela Davis quote. One ad posted by “Black Matters” was targeted at Ferguson, Missouri residents in June 2015 and only featured the lyrics to Tupac’s “California Love.” Around this time, many ads targeted black Facebook users in Baltimore and the St. Louis area.

Some Instagram ads targeted black voters interested in black power, Malcolm X, and the new Black Panther party using Facebook profile information. In the days leading up to November 8, 2016 other ads specifically targeted black Americans with anti-Clinton messaging.

Not all posts were divisive (though most were)

While most ads played into obvious ideological agendas, those posts were occasionally punctuated by more neutral content. The less controversial or call-to-action style posts were likely designed to buffer the politically divisive content, helping to build out and grow an account over time.

For accounts that grew over the course of multiple years, some “neutral” posts were likely useful for making them appear legitimate and build trust among followers. Some posts targeting LGBT users and other identity-based groups just shared positive messages specific to those communities.

Ads targeted media consumers and geographic areas

Some ads we came across targeted Buzzfeed readers, though they were inexplicably more meme-oriented and not political in nature. Others focused on Facebook users that liked the Huffington Post’s Black Voices section or Sean Hannity.

Many ads targeting black voters targeted major U.S. cities with large black populations (Baltimore and New Orleans, for example). Other geo-centric ads tapped into Texas pride and called on Texans to secede.

Conservatives were targeted on many issues

We already knew this from the ad previews, but the new collection of ads makes it clear that conservative Americans across a number of interest groups were regularly targeted. This targeting concentrated on stirring up patriotic and sometimes nationalist sentiment with anti-Clinton, gun rights, anti-immigrant and religious stances. Some custom-made accounts spoke directly to veterans and conservative Christians. Libertarians were also separately targeted.

Events rallied competing causes

Among the Russian-bought ads, event-based posts became fairly frequent in 2016. The day after the election, an event called for an anti-Trump rally in Union Square even as another ad called for Trump supporters to rally outside Trump tower. In another instance, the ads promoted both a pro-Beyoncé and anti-Beyoncé event in New York City.

Candidate ads were mostly pro-Trump, anti-Clinton

Consistent with the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s intentions during the 2016 U.S. election, among the candidates, posts slamming Hillary Clinton seemed to prevail. Pro-Trump ads were fairly common, though other ads stirred up anti-Trump sentiment too. Few ads seemed to oppose Bernie Sanders and some rallied support for Sanders even after Clinton had won the nomination. One ad in August 2016 from account Williams&Kalvin denounced both presidential candidates and potentially in an effort to discourage turnout among black voters. In this case and others, posts called for voters to ignore the election outright.

While efforts like the Honest Ads Act are mounting to combat foreign-paid social media influence in U.S. politics, the scope and variety of today’s House Intel release makes it clear that Americans would be well served to pause before engaging with provocative, partisan ideological content on social platforms — at least when it comes from unknown sources.

News Source = techcrunch.com

How 3D printing is revolutionizing the housing industry 

in 3d printing/America/ceo/China/Column/construction/Delhi/design/Emerging-Technologies/India/industrial design/Netherlands/Politics/printing/Russia/San Francisco/Silicon Valley/TC/Technology/United States by

If you build it, they will come. And if you 3D-print it, they will come faster, cheaper and more sustainably.

We live in an era of overpopulation and mass housing shortages. Yet we also live in a time of phenomenal digital innovation. On the one hand we have major crises affecting the health, liberty and happiness of billions of people. But look at the other hand, where we have potential for life-changing technological breakthroughs at a rate never before seen on this planet.

Our challenges are vast, but our capabilities to produce solutions are even greater. In the future, we will remember this moment in time as a pivotal one. It is now — not tomorrow, and certainly not five years from now — when technology and innovation are disrupting multiple major industries, including those of housing and construction, at breathless and breakneck speed.

Innovators around the world are hard at work to change the way we design, build and produce our homes, and all of this will result in massive change to the housing status quo. Harnessing the revolutionary power of 3D printing, companies from Russia to China, the U.S. and the Netherlands have already proven that not only can a home be 3D-printed, it can be done cheaply, efficiently and easily.

Here are just a few ways 3D printing is already transforming the way we live.

Speed

In March 2017, Apis Cor, 3D-printing specialists with offices in Russia and San Francisco, announced they had produced a 3D-printed home in just 24 hours. That means that from the time you drank your coffee yesterday to the time you sat down for cereal this morning, they produced the self-bearing walls, partitions and building envelopes of an entire home, installed it on site and added the roof and interior finishings. It happened in the dead of winter in a tiny Russian town named Stupino, and it was done using Apis Cor’s on-site printer, which means that the massive cost and logistical hurdle of transporting parts and building materials from factories to a home site was almost entirely eliminated.

Think about the possibilities: You select the site where you want to build your home, Apis Cor brings in their 4.5-meter-long printer, the raw materials are set up and within one single day, your home is printed and ready for you. Compare that to the traditional six- or seven-month construction time the industry is used to, and you’ll begin to understand the scope of potential disruption.

The speed of technological innovation here is also exponential and mind-blowing; just one year before Apis Cor’s breakthrough, we in the 3D-printing industry were marveling over Chinese construction company HuaShang Tengda, who set their own record by 3D-printing a two-story home in a month and a half. Consider that, for a moment: This industry is moving so quickly that construction time has been slashed from 45 days to 24 mere hours in the span of a single year.

Image: shanelinkcom/iStock

Cost

Housing prices in America have skyrocketed over the past 50 years, with the average price for a home now surpassing $200,000. And remember, that’s just the average — if you live on the East or West Coast, chances are you’re going to be shelling out something closer to the half-million dollar mark (or more!).

According to a report from the McKinsey Global Institute, a full one-third of people who live in cities will find decent housing out of their reach due to cost by the year 2025. And construction costs are the primary barrier — the report also states that it will take between $9 trillion and $11 trillion just to build the necessary houses to flip that supply-demand ratio and make housing affordable in that time.

Of course, that’s taking only traditional methods of construction into account. But Apis Cor’s 24-hour home was made for around $10,000. HuaSheng Tenga’s homes were made with only 40 percent of the materials traditional construction usually requires, in 30 percent of the time. That represents massive savings in labor and material costs. And these companies aren’t alone — dozens of other firms are exploring cheaper and less complicated methods for building the roofs we all need over our heads, and slashing prices in the process. 

New Story, a Silicon Valley-based nonprofit that builds housing in the developing world, just unveiled a new 3D printer at SXSW that can print a house in less than a day for $4,000. DUS Architects — a Dutch architecture studio that has been 3D-printing houses since 2012 — has unveiled the KamerMaker, a huge 3D printer that can build using local recycled materials. This slashes transport, material and manufacturing costs, all driving down costs. 

The bottom line

What’s so revolutionary about 3D printing is that its potential is limited only by our imaginations. If the past few years have taught us anything about this industry, it’s that barriers of size, scope and material do not apply to the potential that 3D printing brings to the manufacturing market. From cars to food, to the houses we live in, the industry isn’t just gearing up for a shakeup. It’s in the throes of it already, because change is happening now.

News Source = techcrunch.com

The United States needs a Department of Cybersecurity

in China/Column/computer security/Congress/cyberattack/cybercrime/Cyberwarfare/Delhi/department of defense/Department of Homeland Security/department of justice/executive/Federal Bureau of Investigation/Government/hacking/India/national security/Politics/Russia/San Francisco/Security/spy/United States/Washington by

This week over 40,000 security professionals will attend RSA in San Francisco to see the latest cyber technologies on display and discuss key issues. No topic will be higher on the agenda than the Russian sponsored hack of the American 2016 election with debate about why the country has done so little to respond and what measures should be taken to deter future attempts at subverting our democracy.

For good reason. There is now clear evidence of Russian interference in the election with Special Counsel Mueller’s 37-page indictment of 13 Russians yet the attack on US sovereignty and stability has gone largely unanswered.  The $120 million set aside by Congress to address the Russian attacks remains unspent. We expelled Russian diplomats but only under international pressure after the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter.

Recent sanctions are unlikely to change the behavior of the Putin administration. To put it bluntly, we have done nothing of substance to address our vulnerability to foreign cyberattacks. Meanwhile, our enemies gain in technological capability, sophistication and impact.

Along with the Russians, the Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and newly derived nation states use cyber techniques on a daily basis to further their efforts to gain advantage on the geopolitical stage. It is a conscious decision by these governments that a proactive cyber program advances their goals while limiting the United States.

Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images

We were once dominant in this realm both technically and with our knowledge and skillsets. That playing field has been leveled and we sit idly by without the will or focus to try and regain the advantage. This is unacceptable, untenable and will ultimately lead to potentially dire consequences.

In March of this year, the US CyberCommand released  a vision paper called “Achieve and Maintain Cyberspace Superiority.” It is a call to action to unleash the country’s cyber warriors to fight  for our national security in concert with all other diplomatic and economic powers available to the United States.

It’s a start but a vision statement is not enough.  Without a proper organizational structure, the United States will never achieve operational excellence in its cyber endeavors.  Today we are organized to fail.  Our capabilities are distributed across so many different parts of the government that they are overwhelmed with bureaucracy, inefficiency and dilution of talent.

The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for national protection including prevention, mitigation and recovery from cyber attacks. The FBI, under the umbrella of the Department of Justice,  has lead responsibility for investigation and enforcement. The Department of Defense, including US CyberCommand, is in charge of national defense.  In addition, each of the various military branches  have their own cyber units. No one who wanted to win would organize a critical  capability in such a distributed and disbursed manner.

How could our law makers know what policy to pass? How do we recruit and train the best of the best in an organization, when it might just be a rotation through a military branch? How can we instantly share knowledge that benefits all when these groups don’t even talk to one another? Our current approach does not and cannot work.

Image courtesy of Colin Anderson

What is needed is a sixteenth branch of the Executive — a Department of Cybersecurity — that  would assemble the country’s best talent and resources to operate under a single umbrella and a single coherent policy.  By uniting our cyber efforts we would make the best use of limited resources and ensure seamless communications across all elements dealing in cyberspace. The department would  act on behalf of the government and the private sector to protect against cyberthreats and, when needed, go on offense.

As with physical defense, sometimes that means diplomacy or sanctions, and sometimes it means executing missions to cripple an enemy’s cyber-operations. We  have the technological capabilities, we have the talent, we know what to do but unless all of this firepower is unified and aimed at the enemy we might as well have nothing.

When a Department of Cybersecurity is discussed in Washington, it is usually rejected because of the number of agencies and departments affected. This is code for loss of budget and personnel. We must rise above turf battles if we are to have a shot at waging an effective cyber war. There are some who have raised concerns about coordination on offensive actions but they can be addressed by a clear chain of command with the Defense Department to avoid the potential of a larger conflict.

We must also not be thrown by comparisons to the Department of Homeland Security and conclude a Cybersecurity department would face the same challenges. DHS was 22 different agencies thrust into one. A Department of Cybersecurity would be built around a common set of skills, people and know-how all working on a common issue and goal. Very different.

Strengthening our cyberdefense is as vital as having a powerful standing army to defend ourselves and our allies. Russia, China and others have invested in their cyberwar capabilities to exploit our systems almost at will.

Counterpunching those efforts requires our own national mandate executed with Cabinet level authority. If we don’t bestow this level of importance to the fight and set ourselves up to win, interference in US elections will not only be repeated …  such acts will seem trivial in comparison to what could and is likely to happen.

News Source = techcrunch.com

1 2 3 6
Go to Top