http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-13/nsa-pairs-banks-fight-hackers-will-it-also-gain-access-every-americans-financial-det
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/13/2013 13:08 -0500
As NSA Pairs With Banks To "Fight Hackers", Will It Also Gain Access To Every American's Financial Secrets?
- Bank of America
- Bank of America
- Citigroup
- Iran
- Monetization
- national security
- SPY
- Treasury Department
- Wells Fargo
Just because there was not enough encroachment by the government into virtually every corner of private life, here is another "collaboration" that will further enmesh big brother into every aspect of private life, in this case private financial life, because as the WaPo reports, "major U.S. banks have turned to the National Security Agency for help protecting their computer systems after a barrage of assaults that have disrupted their Web sites, according to industry officials. The attacks on the sites, which started about a year ago but intensified in September, have grown increasingly sophisticated, officials said. The NSA, the world’s largest electronic spying agency, has been asked to provide technical assistance to help banks further assess their systems and to better understand the attackers’ tactics."
And while we salute the great diversionary pretext that "Iranian hackers" pose a greater risk to the stability of the US financial system than, say, the ongoing monetization of US debt at a pace of $85 billion per month, which has made the Fed's DV01 rise to a mindboggling $2.75 billion, or idiot pundits who claim all American problems can be resolved with one coin, we can't help but wonder what happens when the most intrusive of US spy agencies, one which as reported last year is free "to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store" virtually every electronic communication in the entire world, now has full explicit access to all bank data, and, incidentally, every American's financial snapshot at any given moment?
More on the official spin:
The cooperation between the NSA and banks, industry officials say, underscores the government’s fears about the unprecedented assault against the financial sector and is part of a broader effort by the government to work with U.S. firms on cybersecurity. Nonetheless, the assistance is likely to dismay privacy advocates, who say that the NSA has no business peering inside private companies’ systems, even if for the strict purpose of improving computer security.
U.S. intelligence officials said last year they believe the attacks against the banks and other companies have been carried out by Iran, although some experts have cautioned that it is difficult to accurately determine who is behind them.The banks whose Web sites have been disrupted include Bank of America, PNC Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, HSBC and SunTrust. In recent weeks, attackers have targeted up to seven banks a day, but only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.So Monday and Friday are holy days for Iranian hackers we take it?It appears that the private anti-hacker sector is completely powerless to withstand this massive onslaught of millions of Iranian hackers hell bent on seeing just how much money the average American has in their Bank of America online account page:
The banks whose Web sites have been disrupted include Bank of America, PNC Bank, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, HSBC and SunTrust. In recent weeks, attackers have targeted up to seven banks a day, but only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Enter the NSA, which has generously agreed to provide its expertise in learning all there is to know about everyone's finances thwarting evil Iranian hacks.
The government’s willingness to engage “is emblematic of how these cyber-related risks are evolving,” the bank official said. “Agencies like the NSA have tremendous expertise for very sophisticated types of information-security programs.”In general, it can provide assistance to private-sector companies when their systems are seen as critical to national security, said Richard George, a former computer security official at the NSA. The request must come from a government agency, such as the Treasury Department or the Department of Homeland Security, that has authority to work with the company.
But don't worry - the NSA is with the government, and it is here to help:
“The dual mission of the NSA, to promote security and to pursue surveillance, creates an intractable privacy problem,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.Former NSA officials say privacy concerns are overblown and note that requests for NSA assistance are denied when there is no national security interest at stake. George said that, over the past decade, the agency has aided about 10 companies a year after their networks were compromised.“If NSA is involved [with the banks], it’s because they would love to see what’s happening on the victim’s side,” a second former defense official said. “There’s probably more for the government to learn than to give.”
In conclusion:
The NSA declined to comment for this article beyond a statement saying that the agency provides assistance “in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.”
Enlighten us, please, which applicable laws and regulations are these? The same ones that give the government the right to detain citizens indefinitely. Or the one granting itthe right to spy and monitor all Americans' emails and calls without a warrant? Because we are confused.
and if an EMP attack occurs here , don't assume it's Iran......
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/12/how-boeings-non-lethal-champ-missiles-could-mark-a-new-era-in-modern-day-warfare/
How Boeing’s non-lethal CHAMP missiles could mark ‘a new era in modern-day warfare’
Stephen Starr, Special to National Post | Jan 12, 2013 5:47 PM ET | Last Updated:Jan 12, 2013 5:50 PM ET
More from Special to National Post
More from Special to National Post
Courtesy of BoeingThe Boeing Phantom Works’ Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) sends out electromagnetic pulses to disable any electronics in a wide area.
In this occasional series, the National Post tells you everything you need to know about a complicated issue. Today, Stephen Starr looks at technology that fires electronic-disabling microwaves — not warheads — and how it could change the face of war.Q: Are there really microwave missiles?
A: Yes. A three-year, US$40-million project to launch Boeing Phantom Works’ Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) became reality in the Utah desert last October. The missile — launched from an aircraft before flying over its target — sends out electromagnetic pulses that are designed to disable any electronics in a wide area — destroying an enemy’s computers and communications without killing enemy soldiers or civilians. In the October test, the missile fired microwaves at a two-storey building causing all the electronics and computers inside to go dark. Even the cameras monitoring the test were knocked out.
Q: Wow. Is this new technology?
A: It’s been around for a while.The microwave pulse — similar to an electromagnetic pulse — can damage electrical equipment rather like what happens after a nuclear bomb explodes. Pulses were first detected in the 1940s, and even expected by scientists during nuclear detonation tests.
A: It’s been around for a while.The microwave pulse — similar to an electromagnetic pulse — can damage electrical equipment rather like what happens after a nuclear bomb explodes. Pulses were first detected in the 1940s, and even expected by scientists during nuclear detonation tests.
Q: What’s been the reaction to the test?
A: Boeing CHAMP program manager Keith Coleman was elated. “Today we made science fiction science fact,” he said. “This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare.” Norman Friedman, a defence analyst and former deputy director of National Security Studies at the Hudson Institute, said, “It’s a very attractive idea. It’s a non-lethal weapon that could be extremely effective.”
A: Boeing CHAMP program manager Keith Coleman was elated. “Today we made science fiction science fact,” he said. “This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare.” Norman Friedman, a defence analyst and former deputy director of National Security Studies at the Hudson Institute, said, “It’s a very attractive idea. It’s a non-lethal weapon that could be extremely effective.”
Q: Why is it so important at this time?
A: The deployment of unmanned drones, not boots on the ground, has become a cornerstone of U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Better targeting of enemy sites may also help restore faith in overseas Western intervention, long viewed negatively by populations of Pakistan, the Arab world and other Muslim countries.
A: The deployment of unmanned drones, not boots on the ground, has become a cornerstone of U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Better targeting of enemy sites may also help restore faith in overseas Western intervention, long viewed negatively by populations of Pakistan, the Arab world and other Muslim countries.
Q: Outside the kitchen, just how effective are microwaves?
A: Some experts are sceptical of the CHAMP missile’s effectiveness. “The claim was that it was used once and the lights went out in one area. That doesn’t prove a lot,” Mr. Friedman said. He also expressed reservations about the area and distance over which the CHAMP may effectively operate. “Furthermore, if you’re in contact with enemy forces through backchannels or diplomacy, then you lose this channel if this technology is deployed.” Ben Goodlad, a senior analyst and missiles specialist at IHS Jane’s, says no military has committed to buying the weapon at this stage, and all funding has so far been for research and development.
A: Some experts are sceptical of the CHAMP missile’s effectiveness. “The claim was that it was used once and the lights went out in one area. That doesn’t prove a lot,” Mr. Friedman said. He also expressed reservations about the area and distance over which the CHAMP may effectively operate. “Furthermore, if you’re in contact with enemy forces through backchannels or diplomacy, then you lose this channel if this technology is deployed.” Ben Goodlad, a senior analyst and missiles specialist at IHS Jane’s, says no military has committed to buying the weapon at this stage, and all funding has so far been for research and development.
Q: Could it have been used already?
A: Whether this technology may have been deployed in Libya in 2011 or in Syria, where the UN says over 60,000 people have now died, is debatable, military experts believe. “It might have been able to damage [Col. Muammar] Gaddafi’s ability to control his own forces and that might have made things end a lot faster,” Mr. Friedman said. “But it worked out pretty well for NATO in any case.”
A: Whether this technology may have been deployed in Libya in 2011 or in Syria, where the UN says over 60,000 people have now died, is debatable, military experts believe. “It might have been able to damage [Col. Muammar] Gaddafi’s ability to control his own forces and that might have made things end a lot faster,” Mr. Friedman said. “But it worked out pretty well for NATO in any case.”
Q: Will Canada buy in?
A: With access to information about the wider world increasingly available in the public sphere, Western governments are having to become savvier about deciding if, when and how to become involved in conflicts overseas. As such, weapons like CHAMP might favour the peacekeeping roles Canadian forces are often involved in. Martin Shadwick, a professor at York University and a Canadian defence policy expert, said: “One could envisage a scenario where we could say to the public that by using this technology, it reduces the risk of so-called collateral damage. Generally speaking, it could improve public support.” For the Royal Canadian Air Force, the cost of buying the CHAMP, still relatively unproven, may put it out of reach, said Mr. Shadwick. “Canada’s track record on buying so-called smart weapons has been constrained by financial constraints.”
A: With access to information about the wider world increasingly available in the public sphere, Western governments are having to become savvier about deciding if, when and how to become involved in conflicts overseas. As such, weapons like CHAMP might favour the peacekeeping roles Canadian forces are often involved in. Martin Shadwick, a professor at York University and a Canadian defence policy expert, said: “One could envisage a scenario where we could say to the public that by using this technology, it reduces the risk of so-called collateral damage. Generally speaking, it could improve public support.” For the Royal Canadian Air Force, the cost of buying the CHAMP, still relatively unproven, may put it out of reach, said Mr. Shadwick. “Canada’s track record on buying so-called smart weapons has been constrained by financial constraints.”
No comments:
Post a Comment