BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Malaysian-Indians becoming victims of slavery

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

KUALA LUMPUR: Many illiterate ethnic Indians in Malaysia are falling prey to scams by organized syndicates who lure them with well-paying jobs and later treat them like slaves, a leading daily here reported on Saturday.

Wanting a better life for their family and eager to escape the grip of poverty, many ethnic Indians fall victim to the scam which has been kept under close wraps by syndicates, the New Straits Times said in a report from Malacca.

One of the victims, M Nadarajah, 47, said the syndicate members were like “thugs, who exerted force to instil fear so that we dare not go against them.” He alleged that he and some others victims were abused verbally and physically.

Nadarajah said his captor had also threatened to sell his children, especially his two girls, if he escaped, the paper reported.

The newspaper, however, did not give any details of how many victims were lured by the syndicate. There was also no mention of any action by the police.

Have Your Say: Malaysian-Indians becoming victims of slavery
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Amnesty requests UN to release Sri Lankan civilian death toll

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

Have Your Say: Amnesty requests UN to release Sri Lankan civilian death toll
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

US cybersecurity plan poses new war threats

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

By Tom Eley |

President Barack Obama announced on Friday the creation of a new “cyber czar” position. The Cybersecurity Coordinator, who is yet to be named, would oversee billions of dollars in funding for developing and coordinating defense of the computer networks that operate the global financial system and domestic transportation and commerce, according to the administration. The position, which Obama said would report directly to him, results from a 60-day “cyberspace policy review” Obama ordered.

Obama’s announcement was overshadowed by the US military’s imminent creation of a new military “Cyber Command,” detailed in a New York Times article published Friday. Obama has not even been presented with the military’s plan, nor did he mention it directly in his press conference. However, administration sources have said he will sign a classified order or set of directives later this month authorizing the creation of the Cyber Command.

Media accounts indicate that the formation of the parallel domestic and military cyber security agencies was the source of a bitter “turf battle” between and within competing national security and federal domestic agencies.

As a compromise, Obama’s domestic Cybersecurity Coordinator would report to both the National Economic Council (NEC), a White House economic advisory group, and the National Security Council, the top-level presidential advisory group that coordinates foreign and military policy, thus ensuring “a balance between homeland security and economic concerns,” the Washington Post reports. Obama’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, fought for a dominant role for the NEC so that “efforts to protect private networks do not unduly threaten economic growth.”

In his Friday press conference, Obama sought to present the Cybersecurity Coordinator position in the most innocuous terms, referring to the “spyware and malware and spoofing and phishing and botnets.” and “cyber thieves” that anyone with access to the Internet confronts. Obama emphasized that the measure would not include “monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans,” he said. “Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be—open and free.”

But the creation of high-level police agency tasked with overseeing the Internet raises troubling questions. As the New York Times notes, it “appears to be part of a significant expansion of the role of the national security apparatus” in the White House.

Meanwhile, legislation working its way through Congress, the so-called Cybersecurity Act of 2009, would grant the US government unprecedented control over the Internet. The bill gives the president unrestricted power to halt Internet traffic, ordering the shutdown of both government and privately owned and operated networks deemed related to “critical infrastructure information systems,” merely by declaring a “cybersecurity emergency.”

In his remarks, Obama pointed to the threat of cyber terrorism, noting that US “defense and military networks are under constant attack. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country.” He invoked the recent terror attacks on Mumbai, India, where “terrorists…relied not only on guns and grenades but also on GPS and phones using voice-over-the-Internet.” Obama also alluded to the possibility of cyberwarfare with a major foe, mentioning Russia by name. “Last year we had a glimpse of the future face of war,” Obama said. “As Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, cyber attacks crippled Georgian government websites.”

However, these sorts of threats would most likely not fall under the purview of the Cybersecurity Coordinator, at least based on Obama’s explanation of the position. The implication is that these “threats” would be handled by the military-intelligence Cyber Command.

Reports indicate that there is an acrimonious struggle within the national security apparatus over who should oversee the new command. Currently, the National Security Agency (NSA) controls most of the functions that would be associated with cyberwarfare. Created by Democratic President Harry S. Truman in 1952 at the height of the Cold War, the NSA is a spy agency tasked with breaking the codes and signals of foreign entities and encrypting sensitive US government communications. It is overseen by a military figure—either a lieutenant general or vice admiral—and the NSA reports to the Department of Defense.

In March, Rod Beckstrom, the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber-security head (Director, National Cybersecurity Center) resigned in protest over the NSA appearing to win out in the struggle over who should “defend” domestic computer networks. In his resignation letter, which was leaked to the press, Beckstrom implied that the Office of Management and Budget had conspired with the NSA to starve his own agency of funding, and raised the threat posed by the NSA overseeing domestic computer-spying operations. “The threat to our democratic processes are significant if all top government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly),” Beckstrom wrote. “During my term as director we have been unwilling to subjugate the NSCS underneath the NSA.”

A Wall Street Journal report at the end of April indicated that the head of the Cyber Command would be current NSA chief, General Keith Alexander. Other accounts indicate that the Cyber Command would more likely report at first to the military’s Strategic Command, which oversees the nation’s nuclear arsenal, according to sources cited in the New York Times. And still other sources have said NSA personnel could be moved into a new military command structure under the control of the Pentagon.

In any case, the formation of the Cyber Command raises the threat of the military or the NSA launching operations within the US. Both are currently constitutionally-prohibited from carrying on either military or spy actions within American borders. One anonymous “senior intelligence official,” cited in the Times, called this “the domestic spying problem writ large.”

“These attacks start in other countries, but they know no borders,” he said. “So how do you fight them if you can’t act both inside and outside the United States?” The answer, implied by the very formation of the Cyber Command, is that the military and spy agencies should disregard the traditional separation of foreign war and espionage, on the one hand, and domestic policing and investigation, on the other.

According to the Defense Department, in 2008 360 million attempts were made to breach its computer networks. It also reported that the Pentagon spent $100 million in the past six months to repair damage done by hackers, most of whom work from Russia and China, it is claimed. In early April the Wall Street Journal reported that hackers had penetrated the national electricity grid and even the Pentagon’s $300 billion Joint Strike Fighters program.

Yet despite the rhetoric about national defense, comments from administration sources and military figures make clear that motivating the creations of the military cyber defense is its offensive capabilities. “We are not comfortable discussing the question of offensive cyberoperations, but we consider cyberspace a war-fighting domain,” said Bryan Whitman, an Obama Pentagon spokesman. “We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield, which includes protecting our freedom of movement and preserving our capability to perform in that environment.”

Have Your Say: US cybersecurity plan poses new war threats
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

SEO Training Course Reveals New Secrets

Saturday, May 30th, 2009

BECOME AN SEO GURU IN HOURS!
JUST $27 PER MONTH

Since the demand in SEO (Search Engine Optimization) has increased by almost 10 fold in the past 12 months, so also has the demand for high quality SEO training courses.

All novices can pick up basic tactics like the use of title and meta data in their pages but the more advanced methods are rarely, if ever, made public.

Even intermediate knowledge such as keyword proximity and density can be easily researched via the internet, but what is never spoken about, at least freely on Internet forums and PDF sheets, is the real nuts and bolds of what makes a search engine like Google tick.

Armed with this elite knowledge, anyone, no matter what their technical ability, can engineer any website from zero to hero in a matter of minutes; dominating the search engines and pulling the traffic (and profits) that makes such valuable information pay for itself within days.

For example, little is known about the Google algorithms, there is much speculation from those who think they know these lucrative insider secrets, but even what Google releases to the public about algorithms such as QDF is extremely limited.

So how does someone wishing to expand their SEO knowledge discover the ‘magic ingredients’?

The Google Front Page Supremacy video master class explains in detail every single factor search engines use in their ranking algorithms.

From complete novice to the most advanced and highly trained of SEO gurus, every single nut and bolt is covered, from basic keyword research right through to Growth Profiles, Clustering and Independent Peers.

No stone is left unturned. To gain instant access to all this knowledge, and be kept bang up to date about every search engine development subscribe below for the insane price of just $27 a month.

BECOME AN SEO GURU IN HOURS!
JUST $27 PER MONTH

Video courses with less information are currently retailing for £400, and do not include updates to keep you ahead of all other SEO’s. See what people are saying about this offer:

“10 years of full-time internet marketing and these videos still opened my eyes to whole new worlds of traffic. Now getting 6,000 visitors per hour to a site.” - Jon MacPherson of jonmacpherson.info

“People shouldn’t be able to get this type of information for such a low price.” - Daniel Molano of danielmolano.com

Try it for yourself

Have Your Say: SEO Training Course Reveals New Secrets
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Israel Won’t Work With UN Gaza ‘War Crimes’ Probe

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Israel said Friday that it will not cooperate with a United Nations team appointed to investigate alleged war crimes committed during its 22-day offensive in Gaza. The UN announced from Geneva Friday that the four-member team, headed by South African war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone, will head to the region this weekend, and wants to begin work next week.

The team will remain in the region for one week and was expected to present its report next month.

“This committee has been instructed to find Israel guilty no matter what and there is no point in cooperating with such a masquerade,” Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman Yigal Palmor told the German Press Agency dpa.

Goldstone has previously said the investigation would go ahead with or without Israeli cooperation. Aides to the jurst say he has been attempting to contact the Israeli government and implied he has not received a response.

The team “will enter Gaza from Egypt via the Rafah crossing point,” the UN fact-finding mission said in a statement, effectively eliminating the need for Israeli approval to reach the enclave.

Both Goldstone and Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, the President of the Human Rights Council who appointed the team, have said they want the mission to include investigations into possible violations of Israeli human rights as well.

The UN would only say that besides Gaza “other field visits are being planned.”

Israel, and other nations such as Canada, have accused the UN Human Rights Council - which mandated the fact-finding mission in a January resolution passed by 33 in favour, one against and 13 abstentions - of overtly singling it out.

That resolution “is profoundly biased,” Palmor claimed, saying it ordered a probe only into alleged Israeli violations, while ignoring Hamas, the Islamist movement ruling Gaza.

In April, when the full mandate of the team was announced, Goldstone said his “mission will have regard to all human rights violations and international humanitarian law violations committed in Israel, Gaza and the occupied territories.”

This would help the mission “gain the credibility of all sides and be truly, truly independent and produce a report that is fair, balanced and impartial,” Uhomoibhi had said after extending the mandate.

Israel launched the December 27 to January 18 offensive in Gaza in response to rocket attacks by Palestinian militants from the coastal salient at its southern towns and villages.

According to the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), 1,417 Palestinians, most of them civilians, died in the war, which also caused massive destruction. Thirteen Israelis also died.

Goldstone was the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and was a key legal figure in South Africa’s transition to democracy.

He said that as a Jew, it was “quite a shock” to have been appointed to head the mission.

Have Your Say: Israel Won’t Work With UN Gaza ‘War Crimes’ Probe
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The anti-cluster bomb campaign

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Geneva - Human rights groups launched Friday a “week of action” to try to convince governments to sign and ratify the international treaty which bans the use, production and stockpiling of cluster munitions. The campaign was being launched one year after countries concluded negotiations on the treaty in Ireland. In December, the treaty was opened for signatures. Since then, 96 governments signed and seven have ratified the treaty.

 

Work has also commenced in several countries on eliminating their stockpiles of the weapon.

 

Spain became the first country to destroy its entire stockpile in March. Other countries were on their way, the Banning Cluster Munitions report released Friday said. These included Canada, Colombia and Britain.

 

Steve Goose, of Human Rights Watch’s arms control division, said he was “optimistic” the United States would eventually join the convention.

 

He noted that President Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate, supported some bans on cluster bombs, and also signed into law, after entering the White House, a permanent ban on exporting the weapon.

 

Cluster bombs eject sub-munitions over a wide area, making them a deadly and generally imprecise weapon. Many fail to explode and effectively turn into landmines scattered across civilian populated areas. Clearing them can also be an expensive task.

 

In Afghanistan, for example, Human Rights Watch said 232 strikes by the US army spread 1,228 cluster bombs, with 248,056 bomblets, throughout the country in 2001 and 2002. Parts of the country were also covered by the weapon during the Soviet invasion.

 

Afghanistan, like Laos and several other countries, remains heavily affected by cluster munitions.

 

“Cluster bombs have killed and injured far too many civilians at the time of attack,” said Steve Goose, of Human Rights Watch’s arms control division.

 

“Even worse, they go on killing days, weeks, months and even decades later,” he added, explaining that after they fail to explode they can remain for years in the ground or in lakes where people fish.

 

The coalition said some of the world’s biggest users and stockpilers have not yet signed up to the convention. These include the US, Russia, China, North Korea, and Israel.

 

It was Israel’s massive use of clusters in southern Lebanon in 2006 that sparked rights groups into action on getting the treaty together, the report said.

 

Russia and Georgia have both been accused of using the weapon during their conflict last summer.

 

Cluster bombs were still believed to be produced in at least 17 states. At the same time, more countries who support the treaty were also banning the transport of the weapon through their territory, effectively limiting the way to move them.

 

The treaty, beyond calling for the complete destruction of all cluster bombs within a decade, also orders states to give extensive assistance to victims of munition.

 

It does not include clauses on criminal prosecution against users, and the campaigners said that would have to be decided at the level of national legislators.

 

Six months after the 30th country signs the treaty it will enter into force. That is expected to occur next year, Goose said.

 

The progress made in ending the use of the bombs was a “remarkable story of sea change in the international perspective on the weapon,” Goose said.

Have Your Say: The anti-cluster bomb campaign
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Council Rejects ID Card Scheme

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Have Your Say: Council Rejects ID Card Scheme
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Amnesty Responds to CIA’s Denial of Former Vice President Cheney’s Request for Documents’ Release

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

In response to today’s news from the Central Intelligence Agency that it was denying former Vice President Cheney’s request for the public release of two memos–on the basis that the documents are currently the subject of pending litigation, including a suit filed jointly under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice–the organizations released the following statements:

Tom Parker, counterterrorism expert with Amnesty International USA:

“The fact that Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to secure the release of these documents should obviously not be used as a pretext to withhold them. It is unusual for Amnesty International to find itself on the same side of an argument as the former Vice President Dick Cheney, but we welcome his late conversion to the value of transparency in government. The CIA should comply with the suit, stop stalling and make these documents public at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Gitanjali Gutierrez, attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights:

“A year ago under the Bush administration, the CIA argued that disclosure of this document and others would jeopardize national security. Cheney’s self-serving request now to share the information with the public makes clear that the CIA has been using pretexts to withhold information vital to the public debate about the CIA’s torture program. The agency should commit to telling the public what we demand to know.”
Margaret Satterthwaite, faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law:

“Like Dick Cheney, we call on the CIA to immediately release these documents. Unlike him, however, we seek their disclosure to further transparency and oversight of an unlawful program. The CIA’s arguments of a year ago–that the documents could not be released because they pertained to an ongoing program–are no longer valid since the president ordered the program closed in January. The American public deserves to have the full details about this program and the CIA should not block the public’s attempt to learn the facts.”

Have Your Say: Amnesty Responds to CIA’s Denial of Former Vice President Cheney’s Request for Documents’ Release
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Watchdog wants police to limit CCTV demand on pubs

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Tough new government guidelines are to be demanded to stop police making unfair requests to pubs and clubs around the use of CCTV.

Privacy watchdog The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is to make the plea in response to the government’s plans for a mandatory code of practice for the industry.

The ICO fears police are using licensing conditions to make pubs install CCTV or identity scanners, which can provide information on their drinkers.

Under the new mandatory code of practice consulation, the government avoided plans to make CCTV a blanket condition for all pubs, but councils will be able to force outlets in trouble-spots to operate surveillance if it feels it is needed.

Deputy information commissioner David Smith said strict new rules to reign in police demands were still required and urged clarity in the code.

 

“What we are worried about is that businesses are being forced into gathering information for police and the law enforcement agencies,” he said.

“The question is whether we are going too far and is this surveillance at a level that is unacceptable that doesn’t justify the benefits. Pubs and clubs should not become information gathering sources for police.”

Smith said the ICO wanted some “very clear guidance” on how far police can go. “We wonder how many landlords have simply gone along with police demands when there weren’t any proper grounds to do so,” he added.

An ICO spokeswoman later said: “There needs to an absolute reason why CCTV or ID scanners need to be in place. We understand that CCTV can serve an important purpose, but we don’t want licensees to feel they have to have CCTV to have a licence.”

Earlier this year, Islington licensee Nick Gibson won a battle with police not to have CCTV at his newly-opening pub on the basis it would interfere with his customer’s civil liberties.

The public consultation on the code of practice close on August 5.

Have Your Say: Watchdog wants police to limit CCTV demand on pubs
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Google Street View causes another stir

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

The roving eye of Google’s Street View camera has been out and about in Cheltenham, UK.

Residents spotted the van in the area this week, capturing images for the website’s extensive mapping programme.

The site features photographs of every street in towns which have been “mapped” by Google’s mysterious-looking cars with blacked-out windows.

People living in St Mark’s had mixed views on whether or not they were in favour of their homes, gardens – and even themselves – being caught on camera.

Jess Cave, who lives in Spenser Road, gave it the thumbs up.
She said: “I think it’s only a bit of fun so I don’t really mind. I don’t feel like I’m being spied on and I’m not bothered by it.

“I’m sure I’ll be checking it out when it goes online.”

Student Cindie Taylor, who is looking to move into the area, said it would help her to look at houses.

She said: “I love it and I’ll be checking it out when they put it up on the web.

“I’ll be able to see what places are like when I’m looking for somewhere to live.”

Pensioner Margaret Slack was also in favour. She said: “I’m not bothered at all by it. I’ve got nothing to hide so why not.”
However Cheralyn Rendall, who lives in Shakespeare Road, said: “It’s an invasion of privacy. It just seems pointless. I can’t really understand the reason behind it.

“I’ve got young kids and I wouldn’t want them to be looked at on the internet through this.”

Lucie Bennett, who also lives in Spenser Road, said: “If my daughter was out playing in the garden and it caught her on camera I wouldn’t like that.

“I think they should tell people beforehand what they’re going to do rather than just turn up when they choose.”

Pensioner Michael Poppleton said: “It’s an invasion of privacy and if they caught me on camera I’d be asking them to remove it.”
Beverley Fennel, who lives just off Shakespeare Road, agreed.

She said: “I’m not against CCTV for people’s safety but this seems like too much of an invasion of privacy.

“It’s not going to really benefit anyone, so what’s the point? People have a right to do what they want in their homes and gardens without a camera coming past and taking a picture.”

The system allows people to search for 360-degree pictures of “virtual” streets.

It’s not yet known when the coverage will be complete and available to view online.

Residents concerned over privacy can ask for their faces to be blurred out, via the Street View website.

Have Your Say: Google Street View causes another stir
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Who’s Watching You?

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Last Monday the BBC broadcast the first in a new three-part series called ‘Who’s Watching You?’ UK readers can view the show (until next Monday) by using the BBC’s iPlayer facility.

In his BBC blog, series producer Mike Rudd says: “Cheaper and more advanced technology has prompted a massive expansion in surveillance – not just through CCTV, listening devices, tracking, but also through all the personal data that’s collected on every one of us.

“As the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas says, we leave an “electronic footprint” behind us almost wherever we go – with every click of the mouse, every phone call, every time we use a credit card. And that information just grows and grows, allowing a more and more detailed and intrusive picture to be constructed of how we each live our lives.

“The paradox is that there is a great deal of support for things like CCTV. We all benefit from better crime detection and from easier and cheaper services. But we know surprisingly little about the depth and breadth of modern surveillance, or about the potential problems when things go wrong.”
A lot to offer
The show is an ‘authored’ piece, with presenter Richard Bilton offering his views and opinions on the issues raised – which included council misuse of RIPA powers, ANPR use by police, data loss, and more.

And because it’s an authored investigation, it employs ever-present, irritating, faux-degraded imitations of CCTV footage, and annoying, constantly moving, constantly zooming and re-focusing cameras. We get it, Mike, ok? It’s about CCTV. Relax.

But despite these stylistic reservations, I think programmes such as this one have a lot to teach the security industry about the actual concerns of the public. Investigations into the ‘surveillance state’ are often dismissed by the industry as alarmist and ill-informed, but the very fact that programmes such as this one are being made – to express the concerns of a sizable proportion of the public – mean the image of the surveillance industry could do with some improving.

If the security industry is to be effective in preventing crime, terror and other incidents, and in investigating and prosecuting those that do take place, it needs the trust of the public behind it.
Confusing messages
As Bilton himself said on Monday, the British public sends out confusing messages about surveillance. “We embrace it, and want more, not less,” he said. And we allow cameras deeper into our private lives than authorities would (currently) dare go.

But there is a constant concern about the potential for a ‘police state’. And that is amplified when cameras and surveillance methods become intrusive.

This can be simply an irritation. But there’s potential for it to be much worse, unless it is regulated and controlled effectively.

We’re always told “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about.” Which is fine if you know where you stand. But what if the goalposts shift? What if – perish the thought – a government which you don’t agree with, with different notions of what ‘nothing to hide’ might mean – comes to power?
Protected from protectors
There needs to be a system in place to ensure surveillance – and more specifically, surveillance databases – cannot be used against the people they are meant to protect.

Like it or not, the security industry has a responsibility to ensure that the use of its equipment and technologies are safeguarded through effective and stringent privacy and data protection legislation and enforceable standards.

And for its own good – for our own good – it needs to be seen to be advocating privacy, care with databases, and individual rights. It’s not only good PR, it’s for the greater good.

At the close of the first episode, Bilton says he seen no evidence so far to support ‘Big Brother’ theories. But, he says: “I think the march of surveillance is pretty much unstoppable. And if that’s the case, I think we need more protection, better regulations, and stronger safeguards.”

Have Your Say: Who’s Watching You?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Lost Military Disks Had Personal Information

Monday, May 25th, 2009

LONDON - AN INTERNAL military memo published on Monday confirmed that computer disks lost at a British Royal Air Force base contained sensitive files on the private lives of senior officers, including answers to vetting questions about drug abuse, extramarital affairs and the use of prostitutes.
The memo was released to Britain’s The Guardian newspaper under freedom of information laws following the loss of data disks in September.

At the time of the theft from RAF Innsworth, about 113 miles west of London, Britain’s defense ministry said only that personal data such as bank details and addresses could have been lost.

But the memo confirms that the data included details of security vetting, potentially involving information on criminal convictions, debts, medical conditions and sexual activity.

‘This data provides an excellent target list for foreign intelligence services, investigative journalists and blackmailers,’ the memo stated.

Britain’s defense ministry declined Monday to confirm the details of the lost data, but said there is no evidence it is in the hands of criminals or enemy forces.

‘All individuals identified as being at risk received personal one-on-one interviews to alert them to the loss of data, to discuss potential threats and to provide them with advice on mitigating action,’ a ministry spokeswoman said, on condition of anonymity in line with policy. — AP

Have Your Say: Lost Military Disks Had Personal Information
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Court orders activist released

Monday, May 25th, 2009

INDIA’S Supreme Court Monday ordered the release of a leading human rights activist held on charges of colluding with outlawed Maoist insurgents.
Judges said Binayak Sen must be released on bail from the jail in Chhattisgarh state where he has been imprisoned since his arrest in May 2007.

The court’s ruling came a year after 2,000 rights activists, doctors and authors, including American writer Noam Chomsky, petitioned the Indian government for Sen’s release.

Sen, a paediatrician by profession, denies all charges that he was linked to the Maoist guerrillas who control parts of Chhattisgarh.

The state’s chief minister, Raman Singh, said he would comply with the court’s orders.

Sen, 59, is a public health expert and also a senior member of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, a respected Indian human rights group.

He was working with poor people in Chhattisgarh when he was arrested.

India’s Maoists say they are fighting for the rights of neglected tribal people and landless farmers. — AFP

Have Your Say: Court orders activist released
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Victims Families: 7/7 investigation a “whitewash”

Monday, May 25th, 2009

Families of victims of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London have denounced a parliamentary investigation into the events as a “whitewash”. They accuse Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which issued a report of its investigation last week, of covering up the failure of MI5 to stop the four suicide-bombers who killed 52 people and injured 700.

Sean Cassidy whose son Ciaran died on the London underground, said, “This is a complete whitewash. We now need a public inquiry. It is the only thing that will answer all the questions. It has to be independent. We are four years on and there are still no answers.”

Robert Webb, whose sister Laura died, said, “The ISC report seemed to give the benefit of the doubt to MI5 in a way the Hutton Report or the Butler Inquiry did to MI6 over Iraq… I feel I owe it to Laura to get some answers… We need a fair independent inquiry that asks robust questions of MI5 and the police into why decisions were made and looks at wider questions of why these men did what they did.”

Rachel North, who survived the July 7 bombings, accused MI5 of using “weasel words” over what they knew, adding, “It does look a lot like MI5 ran rings around the MPs” who sit on the ISC.

In the aftermath of the July 7 bombings, then Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the attacks came “out of the blue” and the four bombers—Mohammad Siddique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain—were “clean skins” with no known links to terrorism. Ministers and senior security officials insisted there was no warning of an imminent attack.

The ISC report confirms that, in reality, there was a wealth of information about the bombers, particularly Khan. “As we have delved deeper,” it declares, “we have uncovered new information that even the organisations involved had not connected together.” In relation to Khan the report reveals:

* He was cautioned by West Yorkshire Police for assault in 1993, a police record created and his photograph taken.

* In 2001, several months before the September 11 bombings in New York, Khan was one of 40 men filmed by West Yorkshire Police surveillance officers at a suspected terrorist training camp in Yorkshire, although he remained unidentified.

* In late March 2003, MI5 received intelligence that Mohammed Quayam Khan, from Luton, was the leader of an “Al-Qaida facilitation network”, which provided financial and logistical support to the organisation. MI5 launched an investigation called Operation Crevice, about which it informed the ISC.

* In April 2003, Siddique Khan was seen driving a car carrying an extremist suspect connected to another investigation.

* In July 2003, Quayam Khan’s mobile phone was found to contain the number of Siddique Khan’s phone, which was registered to an Islamist bookshop in Leeds.

* In January 2004, MI5 received intelligence that another individual in the network, Omar Khyam, was involved in an active bomb plot. Khyam became MI5’s “top priority” and Operation Crevice developed into “the largest operation they had ever run”. Khyam was under “consistent” surveillance and everyone he met and spoke to was “assessed”.

* On February 2, 2004, Khan met Khyam near Crawley and was followed and photographed on his way back to Leeds.

* On February 20, 2004, the same day that 600 kilograms of fertiliser was discovered in a warehouse, electronics expert Mohammed Momin Khawaja arrived from Canada to give advice to the Crevice group on remote detonation devices. The following day Khan attended a “farewell” meal with the group and Khawaja.

* On three occasions between February 28 and March 23, 2004 Khan drove to Crawley to meet Khyam and was heard talking about financial fraud, the “success of the Madrid bombings” and returning to “jihad” in Pakistan. Despite being followed home again on one occasion to Leeds, Khan still remained unidentified and classified as a “desirable” target for MI5 investigation (Khyam was classified as “essential”). MI5 told the ISC that they could easily have identified Khan, but did not because he was considered a “small-time fraudster” who had “minor contact” with the Crevice plotters.

* At the end of March 2004, Khyam and seven others in the Crevice group were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the fertiliser plot, tried and found guilty in April 2007.

* In May 2004, a detainee revealed that a man named “Ibrahim” had travelled to Pakistan in 2003 and met the future Crevice group members there.

* In June-July 2004, ten “extremely sensitive” emails are exchanged between West Yorkshire Police and MI5 about Khan and other Crevice contacts in the Leeds area. One of the emails was nine pages long and contained Khan’s 1993 photograph.

* On July 14, 2004, a check on the Police National Computer showed that there had been 21 enquiries about Khan’s car since August 2003.

* On February 9, 2005, Khan’s car was put on the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system so that CCTV cameras around the country could track it.

* On April 12, 2005, following confirmation from another source that “Ibrahim” had been in Pakistan, MI5 launched Operation DO*** (the full name is redacted in the ISC report) to identify him. It was not until after the 7/7 bombings that Ibrahim was discovered to be Khan. Recent evidence suggests a fifth man was involved and remains at large.

Faced with these facts, the MPs on the ISC had no option but to express their astonishment. Their report declares, “even though Siddique/Sidique/Sadique Khan was not assessed to be significant it is nevertheless surprising, given the amount of information MI5 and the police had on him, that they said they had not identified Mohammed Siddique Khan prior to 7/7.”

However, the report concludes, “We cannot criticise the judgments made by MI5 and the police based on the information that they had and their priorities at the time.”

Throughout its 102 pages, the report strives to excuse the failure of the police and security services to identify the July 7 bombers by referring to “missed opportunities,” only made clear with the benefit of hindsight. It claims the different ways Siddique was spelt hampered the investigation!

The report also claims MI5 was hampered by lack of resources. MI5’s undisclosed budget has tripled since 2001 and the annual bill for all intelligence related activity stands at £2.5 billion a year.

The report brands as “astounding” the revelation that MI5 had been able to investigate only one in 20 terror suspects in 2004 and that 54 “essential” targets were not even being watched. The ISC states, “They had to prioritise even within this essential group. Therefore a “desirable” target did not even get close to attracting a share of the limited resources available.” The ISC report makes the outlandish statement that several hundred thousand MI5 officers would be needed to meet all eventualities, as opposed to the current 3,500.

The report also claims MI5 was overwhelmed by the vast amount of information it had to deal with, citing the tens of thousands of phone calls monitored between January and March 2004, of which 4,020 were connected to Operation Crevice.

Many of the key facts that would give a better assessment of Khan’s importance are redacted in the report on the grounds of national security. These include the number of networks being investigated, the number of people “housed” (followed back to their homes), or numbers travelling to Pakistan to attend terrorist training camps. More extraordinary is the revelation that the record of the targets deemed “essential” and “desirable” in 2004 is “no longer available” following update of MI5’s IT system.

Also redacted from the report are all details about specific warnings that Saudi Arabian intelligence had passed on to British and US intelligence in December 2004 about a terror plot by British-born Muslims, aimed at the London Underground or a nightclub. The ISC says it received no reply for requests for further information made to the Saudi Embassy or the French Embassy about statements made by the then French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. He said he had been told at the European Union terrorism meeting following the London bombings that some of the suspects were arrested in 2004 and then released in order to break a wider network.

The above facts are sufficient to justify a public inquiry into the UK’s worst mainland terrorist atrocity. The necessity is compounded by the recent not guilty verdict handed down to three men accused of helping to plan the July 7 bombings. After nearly four years and despite a massive police investigation costing some £100 million, they remain the only people to have faced any charges in relation to the London bombings.

Above all, the July 7 terror bombings in London were used to justify an unprecedented offensive against civil liberties, including the adoption of a shoot-to-kill policy by the police that claimed the life of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. Only days after the bombings, Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected calls for a public inquiry, insisting that Britain faced a continuing threat. He seized on the bombings to bring in measures to drastically curtail free speech rights and expand the powers of the state to spy on the population. Powers were enacted to hold alleged terrorists and their supporters for long periods without charges, deport immigrants, close down mosques, and cordon off entire parts of major cities. New regional MI5 offices and regional police Counter-Terrorism Units were set up.

It is not possible to determine how much was and is really known about the perpetrators of the terror attacks in London, but a full inquiry is necessary. Such an investigation has to be entirely independent of the British government and probe the underlying causes of the bombings and their foundation in the Blair government’s participation in Washington’s illegal war against Iraq.

Have Your Say: Victims Families: 7/7 investigation a “whitewash”
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

How To Protect Your Privacy In IE8

Monday, May 25th, 2009

There will always be times when you don’t want other people to know which sites you’ve been visiting, whatever you use the Internet for. The problem is that we all leave a trail of evidence about our whereabouts and whimsies whenever we open a browser.

To save our blushes, the brand-new version of Internet Explorer – IE8 – features a new InPrivate Browsing mode. When it’s activated, Internet Explorer won’t record any URLs, cookies or temporary Internet files, leaving all other users clueless about what you’ve been up to.

While some people are quick to dub InPrivate mode ‘porn mode’, Microsoft is keen to point out that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to browse in private. If you sit down at a computer in a hostel, hotel or Internet cafe then it’s not unusual to come across the browsing history, email addresses and sometimes passwords of the previous user.

It previously took a few minutes of opening up the Security options and unticking checkboxes to ensure that your information didn’t go the same way. InPrivate mode is a one-click method of doing the same thing.

Not every reason for covering your tracks is smutty, either: you hardly want your partner to know about that perfect present before they open it on their birthday, after all.

Undercover surfing

To start surfing covertly, you’re going to need either the RTM or full-release version of Internet Explorer 8. It will overwrite other versions of Internet Explorer installed on your PC, but even the RTM version is post-beta, so it shouldn’t pose a problem.

To enter InPrivate mode, just find the Safety dropdown menu on the toolbar and choose ‘InPrivate Browsing’ from the list. A new window that has a symbol for private browsing marked on the address bar in a blue tab will then open. You’ll need to use this window for InPrivate browsing. To go back to normal browsing, just return to the first window.

Blocking vs browsing

Many Internet users aren’t that bothered about hiding their browsing history from their family. There is another benefit of InPrivate mode that can still be handy for these users, however. The websites that you visit can use your data to target you with advertising.

For some this is an acceptable way for websites to make money, but for many others it’s an invasion of privacy. The system works like this. Many websites add advertising code to their site from a single domain, such as Google Analytics.

This script effectively maps your progress across the Internet. You can then be targeted with related advertising as you browse, which – at least in advertising theory – makes those adverts more appealing.

Microsoft has built a separate InPrivate function into IE8 for those worried about their privacy: InPrivate Filtering. InPrivate Filtering spots instances of this type of code appearing across web pages and blocks information being transferred to them.

However, the tool is far from perfect, and it’ll only start filtering code after 10 instances are detected, so you should be aware that some data will already have been collected by the time it takes effect.

To use InPrivate Filtering, go to the Safety button on the toolbar and choose ‘InPrivate Filtering’. Unlike InPrivate Browsing mode, you won’t get a notification that it’s running, but it will be ticked in the Safety menu. InPrivate Filtering mode also collects data on the types of sites that are tracking you and the main perpetrators.

It’s interesting to see which companies are the biggest offenders in terms of tracking your progress around the Internet, but if you don’t want to be bothered by this, you can turn it off in the Privacy tab in Internet Options. You can also opt to allow some sites to track your web activity if you have a penchant for a particular service, rather than blanket banning them all.

The perfect alibi

No matter how well InPrivate Browsing hides your browsing history, it’s no help if your loved one creeps up and catches you with a suspicious browser window open. For this occasion we can turn to Ghostfox, an inspired application that hides Firefox and can even disguise your browser as an entirely innocent application.

First of all, grab Firefox. Next, grab the Ghostfox plug-in and install it via the website. Once installed, you’ll notice a small ‘ghost face’ icon displayed in the status bar at the bottom of each of your Firefox windows. To activate Ghost mode, simply click on the icon on the status bar.

This will make all evidence of your browser disappear, including its position on the taskbar – meaning that anyone looking over your shoulder will have no idea what you’re really doing. When Firefox is in Ghost mode, you can bring the window back by dragging the mouse to the left side of the screen, then over to the right side and finally back again.

The browser will then return, although it will disappear if you move your mouse away from the window. Click the Ghost icon to bring it back permanently. Ghostfox will also skin your browser contents, masking the pages within. The masking will be by default set to privacy level three, turning all text grey on white (a hard-to-snoop combination) and removing all images.

You can switch levels by accessing the Ghostfox preferences, which are available via the Add-ons menu. You can also go one step further and hide Firefox within existing applications, solving the problem of the active tab on the taskbar.

If you have a window maximised and activate Firefox using the mouse gesture, it will be rendered in the viewing area of the application. So you can pretend you were drawing a portrait of your spouse, rather than buying her a secret gift.

Going public

While private browsing features can hide your information from those in your own home, they do nothing to protect your data from those outside. This is a big misconception, and one that you need to be aware of.

Your router and firewall will give your home PC adequate protection if properly set up, but if you use your laptop at public hotspots then you must have security tools set up on your system. Private browsing modes will give you no protection at all.

We recommend using the free app Hotspot Shield. It creates a virtual private network (VPN) that sits between your PC and the public connection to stop snoopers from gaining access to your data. What’s more, it encrypts all of your Internet-bound data and gives you a different IP address.

Using Hotspot Shield is easy. When you’re next using a public hotspot, simply double-click the icon on your desktop after connecting to the Wi-Fi network. This creates the VPN and loads a new browser window. You can then browse safe in the knowledge that your data is secure.

If you want to check that your VPN is working, load up the command prompt and type ‘ipconfig’. You should notice that your IP address matches that shown in your browser window. This means that Hotspot Shield is running correctly.

Hotspot Shield becomes active for all Internet applications once it’s running – to switch it off, right-click on the taskbar icon and choose the appropriate option.

Have Your Say: How To Protect Your Privacy In IE8
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

• At least 30 reported killed as Indians protest oil and gas exploration in Peru
• FBI agents raid office protecting whistleblowers
• MI5 and MI6 to recruit more minority spies
• South African Police ‘rotten to the core’
• Hicks feared he would be shot: affidavit

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 30th, 2009 at 8:22 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.