Tag Archives: fbi

What Did My Government Do When I Was Taken Hostage In Iran?

by Blaine3524 Posted on June 7, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Yesterday I filed a lawsuit against the FBI, the CIA, and the State Department. I intend to persuade the government to release records that will reveal how it dealt with the imprisonment of Sarah Shourd, Josh Fattal, and myself in Iran from 2009 to 2011. The three of us were arrested near the Iranian border while on a hike in Iraq’s Kurdish region, which we were visiting on a short trip from Sarah’s and my home in Damascus. Sarah remained in prison for 13 months, and Josh and I for twice as long. For the two years that I was in prison, I wondered constantly what my government was doing to help us. I still want to know.

But my interest in these records is more than personal. Innocent Americans get kidnapped, imprisoned, or held hostage in other countries from time to time. When that happens, our government must take it very seriously. These situations cannot be divorced from politics; they are often extremist reactions to our foreign policy. Currently, Americans are being detained in Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, and other countries.

What does our government do when civilians are held hostage? Sarah’s, Josh’s, and my family, like others in similar situations, were regularly assured by our leaders—all the way up to the Secretary of State and the President—that they were doing everything they could, but our families were rarely told what that meant. Why is this information so secret, even after the fact? It is important to know how the government deals with such crises. Is there a process by which the government decides whether or not to negotiate with another country or political group? How does it decide which citizens to negotiate for and which not to? Are the reassurances the government gives to grieving families genuine, or intended to appease them? Do branches of government cooperate with each other, or work in isolation?

Some will say disclosing such things only helps our enemies. This is a common defense of government secrecy. The CIA seems to be taking this approach with my request by invoking “national security” in its denial. This logic can be applied to almost anything related to foreign policy. If Congress had not publicly discussed the ins and outs of going to war with Syria, for example, it might by some stretch of the imagination have given our military an edge. But without having to defend their positions to the public, members of Congress might have come to a different conclusion and decided to go to war. Obstructing public discussion on how the government reacts to crises impedes democracy.

We are fortunate in this country to have the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows citizens to access unclassified government records. The Act originated in 1955 during the Cold War, when there was a steep rise in government secrecy. It was strengthened after the Watergate scandal. But transparency has since eroded, to the point that federal agencies often don’t abide by the terms of the FOIA without legal coercion. It’s been almost a year since I first filed FOIA requests with the FBI and State Department for records about our case. I filed with the CIA six months ago. The law gives government agencies up to 30 business days to determine whether they will release records. So far, however, no records have turned up. I am not surprised by this. Without a lawsuit, I would not expect to receive anything for years, if at all.

Years can pass before the government gets around to releasing records in response to FOIA requests. Last year, for example, the State Department notified me that it was ready to release around 700 documents in response to a FOIA request I had filed four years prior. The request regarded an Iraqi sheikh who was receiving what amounted to bribes in the form of inflated construction contracts from the US military, a scheme I wrote about for Mother Jones in 2009. Despite the fact that the war is now over, and the records will be much less significant than they might have been at the time, I told State I would indeed like to see them. I am still waiting.

It has unfortunately become commonplace for government agencies to do everything they can to muddle the transparency mandated by the FOIA, to the point where only people trained to get around stonewalling have any chance of succeeding. Take my request to the FBI for records about our case. The Bureau responded to my initial request with its standard denial letter: “Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the Central Records System. We were unable to identify main file records.” It’s a standard response—I’ve received it before—but I was surprised to see it this time. The FBI visited my mom’s home, spoke to my family repeatedly and they have no records?

In fact, the FBI letter is intentionally misleading. What they are saying is that they have failed to find a very particular type of records. As my attorney, Jeff Light, put it, the FBI “has main files on persons, event, publications, etc. that are of investigative interest to the Bureau. Imagine a file cabinet containing a series of folders. Each folder is titled with the name of a person, event, etc. When they are searching main files, they are searching the label on each folder. They are not searching any of the documents inside the folder.” In response, Light and I specifically named a long list of databases and records systems for the FBI to search. Nothing has turned up yet.

It is unfortunate that litigation has become a standard part of the FOIA process. It’s also unfortunate that the government is not transparent with people entangled in political crises about what it is doing to help them. While I was in prison, my mother walked out of meetings with politicians, frustrated with their inaction. After Sarah came home, she also asked the government to tell her what it was doing, and got nothing. We asked again after I was released. I wish I didn’t need to go to court to get an answer.

Excerpt from: 

What Did My Government Do When I Was Taken Hostage In Iran?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Did My Government Do When I Was Taken Hostage In Iran?

All About Blackshades, the Malware That Lets Hackers Watch You Through Your Webcam

by EUNMadiezhk Posted on May 21, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday, US officials announced the arrest of more than 90 people allegedly connected to an organization called Blackshades, which sold software that allows hackers to easily take over a Microsoft Windows computer remotely. Last year, a college student used the tool to take nude photos of Miss Teen USA via her personal computer’s webcam. According to the FBI and law enforcement officials, the program has been sold and distributed to “thousands” of people in more than 100 countries since 2010, affecting some 700,000 victims. Here’s why you might want to update your anti-virus software, or, if you’re prone to dancing around your room naked, at least put a piece of tape over your webcam.

What is Blackshades?
Blackshades is the name of an organization allegedly owned by a Swedish 24-year-old named Alex Yücel. According to government officials, Yücel and Michael Hogueâ&#128;&#139;, a 23-year-old US citizen who was arrested in 2012 as part of the feds’ tangential investigation into Blackshades, codeveloped the Blackshades remote access tool (RAT). This tool, which sold for as little as $40 at bshades.eu and other sites, essentially allowed buyers to act as peeping Toms on strangers’ computers. The organization made more than $350,000 between September 2010 and April 2014, according to the FBI.

How does the Blackshades Remote Access Tool (RAT) work?
The Blackshades RAT isn’t any different than what your IT person at work uses to get remote access to your computer, explains Runa Sandvik, staff technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT). But if your IT department were accessing your computer, “you’d have a heads up,” she says. “In this case you won’t even know the hacker is on your computer.”

After buying a copy of the RAT software, a hacker has to install the program on a target’s computer, by, say, deceiving a person into clicking on a malicious link. Then, once the hacker has access to a computer, he or she can then use the RAT software to easily record a person’s keystrokes or passwords, take screenshots, rummage through computer files, or turn on the person’s web camera, according to the feds. Anything you can do on your computer, the hacker can do, too. And the software makes it all super easy. In fact, it’s “marketed principally for buyers who wouldn’t know how to hack their way out of a paper bag,” writes Krebson Security. Here’s what the command and control panel looks like:

Symantec

The program also includes “spreaders,” which help hackers send out malicious links from peoples’ social-media accounts, and a file hijacker tool. That tool, according to the FBI press release, allows users “to encrypt, or lock, a victim’s files and demand a ‘ransom’ payment to unlock them. The RAT even came with a prepared script demanding such a ransom.”

What do hackers use remote access tools for?
The FBI says the Blackshades RAT has been used to exploit credit cards, bank accounts, and personal information. But perhaps the creepiest way people can use remote accessing tools is to take photos and video via webcam. In November of last year, a college student pleaded guilty to hacking the webcam of Miss Teen USA Cassidy Wolf with the Blackshades software, and attempting to blackmail her. He allegedly said he had up to 40 other “slave computers,” according to the original criminal complaint.

Last year, Ars Technica wrote about a thread on a hacker forum that was more than 134 pages long and filled with images captured through unsuspecting women’s webcams. Hackers wielding remote accessing tools—it’s unknown whether they were using Blackshades or other software—called the women their “slaves” and wrote about picking out “the ‘good’ sexual stuff” and categorizing it using names and passwords, according to the news outlet. And last year, a 17-year-old boy in Detroit paid hackers in the Philippines more than $1,000 in blackmail money after they collected video of him via webcam. This tool has been used for political purposes as well. In 2012, the software was sent by alleged pro-government attackers to try and infect the computers of anti-government Syrian activists.

Now that people have been arrested in connection with Blackshades, does this mean I’m in the clear?
Nope. While the sale of Blackshades software, whose main website has now been shut down, was already on the decline (there were more than 1,300 infections last spring, but fewer than 400 in April 2014, according to Symantec), there are other remote accessing tools out there. “Even if there are just 100 people using Blackshades, there are another 100 using a tool with a different name that works exactly the same way,” says CDT’s Sandvik. Additionally, it’s not clear that the FBI will be able to get the Blackshades charges to stick. As the Daily Beast notes, it may be hard for prosecutors to prove whether the defendants who possessed the software used it for illegal activity.

What should I do to keep my computer private?
Follow best security practices. The FBI and security experts recommend that you update your software, including anti-virus software, install a good firewall, don’t open suspicious email attachments or URLs—even if they come from people on your contact list—and create strong passwords. The FBI has also published a list of files that you can search for on your hard drive to see if your computer has been infected. “Regardless of the specific kind, if you get malware on your system, it’s bad,” says Christopher Budd, a spokesman for Trend Micro, a Japanese security software company. “But people shouldn’t worry about malware, they should take concrete steps.” And if you put tape over your webcam, too, no one will judge you. “I do,” says Sandvik.

Link:

All About Blackshades, the Malware That Lets Hackers Watch You Through Your Webcam

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on All About Blackshades, the Malware That Lets Hackers Watch You Through Your Webcam

You Can’t Lie to Me – Janine Driver

by Myrna Posted on December 21, 2013

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

You Can’t Lie to Me

The Revolutionary Program to Supercharge Your Inner Lie Detector and Get to the Truth

Janine Driver

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: August 28, 2012

Publisher: HarperOne

Seller: HarperCollins


What if you could increase your salary by 15 percent, kick problems and worries to the curb, and get a better night's rest simply by learning how to detect a lie the moment it starts (or even before)? What if you had an easy-to-use test that tipped you off the instant someone held something back from you? An innate lie detector so powerful it becomes an unconscious skill, applicable with any person, in any situation, to help you act fast before what began as an innocent white lie suddenly takes hold of you, your paycheck, or your happiness? No machine built to date has proven more effective than a well-trained human lie detector, says world-renowned body language expert Janine Driver, a former federal law enforcement investigator who has trained agents at the ATF, CIA, and FBI. Today, Driver teaches people like you to supercharge your internal “BS Barometer” quickly and accurately so you can protect yourself from liars and manipulators. You Can’t Lie to Me will change the way you look at job applicants, coworkers, dates, salespeople, money managers—anyone from whom you want and deserve the truth— while simultaneously strengthening and deepening your relationships with your siblings, children, friends, and lovers. Driver distills nearly two decades of behind-the-scenes knowledge, cutting-edge science, and relatable case studies into a simple, powerful five-step program. Whether it’s with your teenager, spouse, mechanic, or fellow board member, and whether you are communicating face-to-face or through phone calls, e-mails, texts, Facebook posts, or handwritten notes, you will have all the tools and confidence you need to spot deception. More important, you will recognize the truth as you build the caring, authentic connections that make life worth living. In You Can’t Lie to Me learn how to perfect your inner lie detector (“BS Barometer”) and ban liars from your life, so you can feel more confident and create stronger, more trusting relationships. Lie detection expert Janine Driver delivers a step-by-step, foolproof program to: • outsmart disloyal coworkers—and beat them to theplum promotions • protect your children from predators and guard agingloved ones—and their nest eggs—from unscrupulous con artists • hire honest employees whose r&eacute;sum&eacute;s and experienceyou can trust • say yes to honest partners and avoid lying cheaters • Get your boss’s attention with these little tips • save thousands of dollars each year using rich people's #1 trick

Continued here:

You Can’t Lie to Me – Janine Driver

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, oven, Pines, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You Can’t Lie to Me – Janine Driver

CBS News’ Benghazi Review Leaves Several Big Questions Unanswered

by Bob Dole Posted on November 26, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s not surprising that CBS News today announced that 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan and her producer Max McClellan were taking (or being forced to accept?) leaves of absence after an internal review confirmed the obvious: they had botched their now infamous Benghazi report and helped perpetuate a hoax crafted by Dylan Davies, a security consultant who claimed he had been at the compound the night of the attack.

The review’s summary findings—which you can read here—note that the contradictions between the account Davies was peddling in public (via a book) and the information he provided to the FBI and the State Department were “knowable” prior to the airing of Logan’s report. Logan and McClellan, the review found, “did not sufficiently vet Davies’ account of his own actions and whereabouts that night.” No kidding. And the report suggests that Logan was driven by both a desire to find something new in a story already much covered and her belief that the Obama administration was misrepresenting the threat posed by Al Qaeda. This is damning: she failed to do a basic task of reporting and she might have had an agenda.

The review does not answer all the questions that popped up following the 60 Minutes report, especially this one: why the hell did CBS News continue to defend this story after evidence emerged that Davies had fabricated his tale? The summary findings note:

After the story aired, the Washington Post reported the existence of a so-called “incident report” that had been prepared by Davies for Blue Mountain in which he reportedly said he spent most of the night at his villa, and had not gone to the hospital or the mission compound. Reached by phone, Davies told the 60 Minutes team that he had not written the incident report, disavowed any knowledge of it, and insisted that the account he gave 60 Minutes was word for word what he had told the FBI. Based on that information and the strong conviction expressed by the team about their story, CBS News chairman and 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager defended the story and the reporting to the press.

Hold on. One of the best newspapers in the world reports the existence of documentary evidence that blows the credibility of your super-duper source out of the water, and what do you do? You call the source and ask him if he told you the truth? When the source insists that he did, you take his word and stick to the story? This does not seem like best practices. The Post report should have triggered a five-alarm alert within CBS News. But this much-storied media institution seemingly brushed it aside. It was only after The New York Times told CBS News that it had discovered that Davies’ account did not match what he had told the FBI that 60 Minutes kicked into action:

Within hours, CBS News was able to confirm that in the FBI’s account of their interview, Davies was not at the hospital or the mission compound the night of the attack. 60 Minutes announced that a correction would be made, that the broadcast had been misled, and that it was a mistake to include Davies in the story.

In other words, the Times had to do CBS News’ own job.

That might be the most embarrassing aspect of this episode. Logan and McClellan screwed up big time—and their motivations are fair game. But CBS News hung on to the Davies fiction after there was reason to suspect the network had been fooled and exploited. (The right-wing Benghazi truthers—this means you, Sen. Lindsey Graham—had jumped on the 60 Minutes report like fleas to a dog.) Did the brass at CBS News calculate that the network could ride out the storm? If so, they were thinking like political spinmeisters, not news people. That’s a blemish that won’t fade soon.

See original:

CBS News’ Benghazi Review Leaves Several Big Questions Unanswered

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on CBS News’ Benghazi Review Leaves Several Big Questions Unanswered

Lara Logan Taking Leave of Absence From "60 Minutes"

by CecileJcy Posted on November 26, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

HuffPo’s Michael Calderone tweets: “Lara Logan and producer producer Max McClellan taking taking leave of absence from 60 Minutes, per Fager memo.” This comes shortly after Calderone reported that Logan “will no longer be hosting the annual press freedom awards dinner hosted by the Committee to Protect Journalists on Tuesday night, as she had long been scheduled to do.”

That’s not a big surprise. More to come on this, I’m sure.

UPDATE: Calderone has a full copy of the Fager memo here, along with a summary report of an investigation into Logan’s Benghazi segment from Al Ortiz, Executive Director of Standards and Practices at CBS News. It validates virtually every outside criticism made of Logan’s piece, which relied on the testimony of Dylan Davies, a security consultant who was in Benghazi on the night of the attacks and went on to write a book about it:

Logan’s report went to air without 60 Minutes knowing what Davies had told the FBI and the State Department about his own activities and location on the night of the attack….The wider reporting resources of CBS News were not employed in an effort to confirm his account….Davies’ admission that he had not told his employer the truth about his own actions should have been a red flag in the editorial vetting process.

….Logan’s assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her report…..In October of 2012, one month before starting work on the Benghazi story, Logan made a speech in which she took a strong public position arguing that the US Government was misrepresenting the threat from Al Qaeda, and urging actions that the US should take in response to the Benghazi attack. From a CBS News Standards perspective, there is a conflict in taking a public position on the government’s handling of Benghazi and Al Qaeda, while continuing to report on the story.

….The book, written by Davies and a co-author, was published by Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, part of the CBS Corporation. 60 Minutes erred in not disclosing that connection in the segment.

That’s a whole lot of errors, all of which were preventable. Logan was just too anxious to tell this story in a particular way, and decided not to let reporting get in the way of it.

Also worth checking out: Jeff Stein’s Newsweek piece a few days ago suggesting that Logan’s husband may have played an instrumental behind-the-scenes role in shaping her Benghazi report.

Credit: 

Lara Logan Taking Leave of Absence From "60 Minutes"

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lara Logan Taking Leave of Absence From "60 Minutes"