Skip to content

Feeling Safer?

Equifax should be wound down..Part 2

Quote

Equifax has consistently failed in their duty to protect data. The company should be forced to offer a permanent lifetime credit freeze for FREE. Or absent of that, wind them them down. They are completely incompetent and should not be allowed to be in this business in my opinion.

The company’s first order of business ought to have been to create a simple way for people to figure out if their data was potentially compromised. On this count, Equifax failed at first.

On Thursday night, I entered my last name and the last six digits of my Social Security number on the appropriate Equifax web page. (They had the gall to ask for this? Really? But I digress.) I received no “message indicating whether your personal information may have been impacted by this incident,” as the site promised. Instead, I was bounced to an offer for free credit monitoring, without a “yes,” “no” or “maybe” on the central question at hand.

By Friday morning, this had changed, and I got a “your personal information may have been impacted by this incident” notification. Progress. Except as my friend Justin Soffer pointed out on Twitter, you can enter a random name and number into the site and it will tell you the same thing. Indeed, I typed “Trump” and arbitrary numbers and got the same message.

..

Now, to the remedy. The company is offering one free year of credit monitoring to all Americans, not just the ones whose data was stolen. It includes the ability to turn your Equifax credit report on and off, to keep thieves from applying for credit in your name using information they stole from Equifax and to have access to your Equifax report to do so.

That’s all well and good, except that the thieves might use the stolen information to apply for credit with lenders that check the credit reports only at the other big agencies, Experian and TransUnion. So this protection is incomplete.

And why just a year? Who knows? Isn’t this an invitation to the thieves to sit on the data for a while and then use it when all of us have moved on?

Meanwhile, people can’t easily change their Social Security numbers to thwart the thieves. So if any bad actors have your personal data, those numbers will be useful for years, maybe decades, depending on how the credit system changes over time.

Equifax should have made the monitoring last forever. Since it didn’t, it will now be able to solicit everyone who signs up for its year of free service. And what do you want to bet that the company will offer an extension bright and early on day 366 for, say, $16.95 per month?

So, yes, your worst suspicions are now confirmed. Equifax may actually make money on this breach. We would expect nothing less from the credit reporting industry, with which few of us would choose to do business but nearly everyone has to sooner or later.

In the meantime, here’s hoping that this breach is the nudge you need to finally sign up for permanent freezes on your credit files. I’ve used them for years, and here’s how they work. You sign up (and pay some fees, because you knew it wasn’t going to be free to protect data that you didn’t ask these companies to store, right?) at Equifax’s, Experian’s and TransUnion’s websites. Christina Bater, managing director at Barrett Asset Management in New York, suggests freezing your file at the little-known company Innovis, too. Hey, why not?

..

And then there’s this: A security freeze doesn’t protect you if the thieves break into the vault of the company that maintains the freeze. That’s what happened here, and we will now spend years seeing what happens next.

Equifax should be wound down..Part 1

There is simply no excuse for this bad actor. Terminate the company.

Quote

Last year, identity thieves successfully made off with critical W-2 tax and salary data from an Equifax website. And earlier this year, thieves again stole W-2 tax data from an Equifax subsidiary, TALX, which provides online payroll, tax and human resources services to some of the nation’s largest corporations.

Cybersecurity professionals criticized Equifax on Thursday for not improving its security practices after those previous thefts, and they noted that thieves were able to get the company’s crown jewels through a simple website vulnerability.

“Equifax should have multiple layers of controls” so if hackers manage to break in, they can at least be stopped before they do too much damage, Ms. Litan said.

Potentially adding to criticism of the company, three senior executives, including the company’s chief financial officer, John Gamble, sold shares worth almost $1.8 million in the days after the breach was discovered. The shares were not part of a sale planned in advance, Bloomberg reported.

The company handles data on more than 820 million consumers and more than 91 million businesses worldwide and manages a database with employee information from more than 7,100 employers, according to its website.

Equifax has created a website, www.equifaxsecurity2017.com, to help consumers determine whether their data was at risk.

People can go to the Equifax website to see if their information has been compromised. The site encourages customers to offer their last name and the last six digits of their Social Security number. When they do, however, they do not necessarily get confirmation about whether they were affected. Instead, the site provides an enrollment date for its protection service, and it may not start for several days.

Equifax’s credit protection service, which is free for one year for consumers who enroll by Nov. 21, is available to everyone and not just the victims of the breach.

Equifax is offering consumers the ability to freeze their Equifax credit reports, said John Ulzheimer, a consumer credit expert who often does expert witness work for banks and credit unions and worked at Equifax in the 1990s. Thieves could have information stolen from Equifax and used it to open accounts with creditors that use Experian or TransUnion.

“It’s like locking one of three doors in your house and leaving the other two unlocked,” Mr. Ulzheimer said. “You’re hoping the thief stumbles on the locked door.” He recommended that all those affected immediately place a fraud alert on all three of their credit files, which anyone can do for free.

Equifax’s offer of one year of free protection falls short of what consumers really need, because their information can be bought and sold by hackers for years to come, Mr. Ulzheimer added.

Beyond compromising the personal data of millions of consumers, the breach also poses a potential national security threat. In recent years, Chinese nation-state hackers have breached insurers like Anthem and federal agencies, siphoning detailed personal and medical information. These hackers go wide in their assaults in an effort to build databases of Americans’ personal information, which can be used for blackmail or future attacks.

Governments regularly buy stolen personal information on the so-called Dark Web, security experts say. The black market sites where this information is sold are far more exclusive than black markets where stolen credit card data is sold. Interested buyers are even asked to submit to background checks before they are admitted.

“Cyberwar is in large part conducted through data mining and cyberintelligence,” Ms. Litan said. “This is also a Homeland Security risk as enemy nation states build databases of Americans that they then use to get to their targets, for example a network operator at a power grid, or a defense contractor at a missile defense company.”

Sen. Mark R. Warner, a Virginia Democrat who co-founded the Senate Cybersecurity Caucus, said he believed the severity of the Equifax breach raised serious questions about whether Congress needed to rethink data protection policies.

“It is no exaggeration to suggest that a breach such as this — exposing highly sensitive personal and financial information central for identity management and access to credit — represents a real threat to the economic security of Americans,” he said in a statement.

Equifax Hack

Quote

“Stand up who HASN’T been hit in the Equifax mega-hack – whoa, whoa, sit down everyone” 143m in US, unknown number in UK, Canada – gulp!

Global credit reporting agency Equifax admitted today it suffered a massive breach of security that could affect almost half of the US population.

In a statement, the biz confessed that hackers managed to get access to some of its internal data in mid-May by exploiting a vulnerable website application. They remained on the system until they were discovered on July 29. Equifax has called in the FBI and is in contact with regulators in other countries about the case.

CEO Richard Smith said that the company’s core consumer and commercial credit reporting databases were untouched – only the names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses and, in some instances, driver’s license numbers of 143 million Americans were exposed.

Oh, so is that good news? Only 143mil? These are foilks that are SOPPOSED to get security right in the first place! What bozos!

In response to the debacle, Equifax is offering every US citizen a year’s free identity theft monitoring for those who apply, and has set up a dedicated call center and website to handle information requests from worried consumers. It will also mail notifications to everyone who lost data in the incident.

Yes, the identity theft detection service will be supplied by… Equifax. And if you want to check you’re affected by the mega-hack, you have to supply your last name and last six digits of your social security number. To an outfit that just lost your social security number. Which is no use to peeps in the UK or Canada.

Great comment

‘We pride ourselves on being a leader in managing and protecting data’

Really, you do do you.

I pride myself at being good at detecting bullshit, the needle moved a bit at that statement.

It should have moved off the scale and bent the needle, but I’ve recently re-calibrated it.

The House voted to wipe away the FCC’s Internet privacy protections

SJ 34 would repeal safeguards that prohibit Internet service providers (ISPs) from sharing data, such as e-mails and web history, with third parties without user consent. It would also do away with transparency requirements, which mandate that ISPs provide easily accessible privacy notices to customers and advanced notice prior to changes…..Assuming Trump signs the measure, Internet providers will be freed from those obligations, which would otherwise have taken effect later this year. With this data, Internet providers can sell highly targeted ads, making them rivals to Google and Facebook, analysts say.

Internet providers also will be free to use customer data in other ways, such as selling the information directly to data brokers that target lucrative or vulnerable demographics.

“ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Charter will be free to sell your personal information to the highest bidder without your permission — and no one will be able to protect you,” wrote Gigi Sohn, a former FCC staffer who helped draft the privacy rules, in a recent blog post on the Verge.

Selling your data is merely one of the four ways in which Internet providers intend to make money off consumers. The others include selling you access to the Internet, as they have traditionally done; selling access to media content they’ve acquired by purchasing large entertainment companies; and selling advertising that directly targets you based on the data the provider has collected by watching how you use the Internet and what content you consume.

Sources: The Hill, Washington Post

Here is the roll call Miscreants who voted to repeal. Source Senate.Gov

Miscreants who voted For BillVoted AgainstNot Voting
Alexander (R-TN)Baldwin (D-WI)sakson (R-GA)
Barrasso (R-WY)Bennet (D-CO)Paul (R-KY)
Blunt (R-MO)Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boozman (R-AR)Booker (D-NJ)
Burr (R-NC)Brown (D-OH)
Capito (R-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)
Cassidy (R-LA)Cardin (D-MD)
Cochran (R-MS)Carper (D-DE)
Collins (R-ME)Casey (D-PA)
Corker (R-TN)Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)Donnelly (D-IN)
Crapo (R-ID)Duckworth (D-IL)
Cruz (R-TX)Durbin (D-IL)
Daines (R-MT)Feinstein (D-CA)
Enzi (R-WY)Franken (D-MN)
Ernst (R-IA)Gillibrand (D-NY)
Fischer (R-NE)Harris (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)Hassan (D-NH)
Gardner (R-CO)Heinrich (D-NM)
Graham (R-SC)Heitkamp (D-ND)
Grassley (R-IA)Hirono (D-HI)
Hatch (R-UT)Kaine (D-VA)
Heller (R-NV)King (I-ME)
Hoeven (R-ND)Klobuchar (D-MN)
Inhofe (R-OK)Leahy (D-VT)
Johnson (R-WI)Manchin (D-WV)
Kennedy (R-LA)Markey (D-MA)
Lankford (R-OK)McCaskill (D-MO)
Lee (R-UT)Menendez (D-NJ)
McCain (R-AZ)Merkley (D-OR)
McConnell (R-KY)Murphy (D-CT)
Moran (R-KS)Murray (D-WA)
Murkowski (R-AK)Nelson (D-FL)
Perdue (R-GA)Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)Sanders (I-VT)
Roberts (R-KS)Schatz (D-HI)
Rounds (R-SD)Schumer (D-NY)
Rubio (R-FL)Shaheen (D-NH)
Sasse (R-NE)Stabenow (D-MI)
Scott (R-SC)Tester (D-MT)
Shelby (R-AL)Udall (D-NM)
Strange (R-AL)Van Hollen (D-MD)
Sullivan (R-AK)Warner (D-VA)
Thune (R-SD)Warren (D-MA)
Tillis (R-NC)Whitehouse (D-RI)
Toomey (R-PA)Wyden (D-OR)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

Ethiopia is Free to Spy on Americans in Their Own Homes – DC Court

I have always banged on about how no-one in the U.S. seems to take I.T. Security seriously, even in the face of daily news about hacks and breaches. What should I expect when our “leaders” set such a fine example.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today held that foreign governments are free to spy on, injure, or even kill Americans in their own homes–so long as they do so by remote control. The decision comes in a case called Kidane v. Ethiopia, which we filed in February 2014.

Our client, who goes by the pseudonym Mr. Kidane, is a U.S. citizen who was born in Ethiopia and has lived here for over 30 years. In 2012 through 2013, his family home computer was attacked by malware that captured and then sent his every keystroke and Skype call to a server controlled by the Ethiopian government, likely in response to his political activity in favor of democratic reforms in Ethiopia. In a stunningly dangerous decision today, the D.C. Circuit ruled that Mr. Kidane had no legal remedy against Ethiopia for this attack, despite the fact that he was wiretapped at home in Maryland. The court held that, because the Ethiopian government hatched its plan in Ethiopia and its agents launched the attack that occurred in Maryland from outside the U.S., a law called the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) prevented U.S. courts from even hearing the case.

The decision is extremely dangerous for cybersecurity. Under it, you have no recourse under law if a foreign government that hacks into your car and drives it off the road, targets you for a drone strike, or even sends a virus to your pacemaker, as long as the government planned the attack on foreign soil. It flies in the face of the idea that Americans should always be safe in their homes, and that safety should continue even if they speak out against foreign government activity abroad. Source: Here

Following the same logic, the U.S. shall have no recourse against supposedly Russian hacking the U.S. Elections

Kuwaiti Government will DNA Test Everyone

Quote

There’s a new law that will enforce DNA testing for everyone: citizens, expatriates, and visitors. They promise that the program “does not include genealogical implications or affects personal freedoms and privacy.”

I assume that “visitors” includes tourists, so presumably the entry procedure at passport control will now include a cheek swab. And there is nothing preventing the Kuwaiti government from sharing that information with any other government.

Despicable

Why the FBI’s request to Apple will affect civil rights for a generation

fbi-cracked-iphone

“No legal case applies in a vacuum, and in this case the FBI needs the precedent more than the evidence.”

Before posting the full article, I want to state I fully support Apple in this matter. As a security professional, I agree with the author Rich Mogull

 

“What matters is if we have a right to the security and privacy of our devices, and of our communications, which are also under assault. If we have the right to tools to defend ourselves from the government and criminals alike. Yes, these tools will be sometimes used for the worst of crimes, but they’re also fundamental to our civil rights, freedom of discourse, and our ability to protect our digital lives from the less impactful, but far more frequent criminal attacks.

 

Quote

On Tuesday, the United States District Court of California issued an order requiring Apple to assist the FBI in accessing a locked iPhone (PDF)—and not just any iPhone, but the iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. The order is very clear: Build new firmware to enable the FBI to perform an unlimited, high speed brute force attack, and place that firmware on the device.

Apple is not only fighting the request, but posted a public letter signed by Tim Cook and linked on Apple’s front page.

Make no mistake: This is unprecedented, and the situation was deliberately engineered by the FBI and Department of Justice to force a showdown that could define limits our civil rights for generations to come. This is an issue with far-reaching implications well beyond a single phone, a single case, or even Apple itself.

As a career security professional, this case has chilling implications.

Why now?

I’ve been writing about Apple’s role in our digital civil rights since 2014, and specifically addressed why Apple is at the center of the battle over encryption last month on TidBITS. The short version is that Apple is one of the only companies with the technologies, high profile, and business model to both find themselves in the cross hairs, and take a strong position.

Make no mistake, Apple has a long history of complying with court orders and assisting law enforcement. Previous to iOS 8, they could extract data off devices. Even today, data in most of their online services (iCloud, excluding iMessage and FaceTime) can be provided upon legal request.

This case is different for multiple reasons:

  • Apple is being asked to specifically create new software to circumvent their security controls. They aren’t being asked to use existing capabilities, since those no longer work. The FBI wants a new version of the operating system designed to allow the FBI to brute force attack the phone.
  • The FBI is using a highly emotional, nationally infamous terrorism case as justification for the request.
  • The request refers to the All Writs Act, which is itself under scrutiny in a case in New York involving Apple. Federal Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the Eastern District of New York is currently evaluating if the Act applies in these cases.

That’s why this is about far more than a single phone. Apple does not have the existing capability to assist the FBI. The FBI engineered a case where the perpetrators are already dead, but emotions are charged. And the law cited is under active legal debate within the federal courts.

The crux of the issue is should companies be required to build security circumvention technologies to expose their own customers? Not “assist law enforcement with existing tools,” but “build new tools.”

The FBI Director has been clear that the government wants back doors into our devices, even though the former head of the NSA disagrees and supports strong consumer encryption. One reason Apple is likely fighting this case so publicly is that it is a small legal step from requiring new circumvention technology, to building such access into devices. The FBI wants the precedent far more than they need the evidence, and this particular case is incredibly high profile and emotional.

The results will, without question, establish precedence beyond one killer’s iPhone.

The technical details

The court order is quite specific. It applies only to one iPhone, and requests Apple create a new version of the firmware that eliminates the existing feature that erases the iPhone after 10 failed attempts at entering the passcode. It further asks Apple to allow passcode attempts to be performed as rapidly as possible.

Apple has been prompting users to choose longer and more complicated—and harder to crack—iPhone passcodes.

Beginning with iOS 8, devices are encrypted using a key derived from your passcode. This is combined with a hardware key specific to the device. Apple has no way of knowing or circumventing that key. On newer devices, the hardware key is embedded in the device and is not recoverable. Thus the passcode must be combined with the device key in a chip on the phone, and that chip rate-limits passcode attempts to make a brute force attack slower.

Reading through the order, it seems the FBI thinks that a modified version of the operating system would allow them to engage in high-speed attacks, if the 10-tries limit was removed. The request indicates they likely can’t image the device and perform all the attacks on their own super-fast computers, due to that hardware key. With a four-character passcode the device could probably be cracked in hours. A six-character code might take days or weeks, and anything longer could take months or years.

Dan Guido over at Trail of Bits posted a great explanation:

As many jailbreakers are familiar, firmware can be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) Mode. Once an iPhone enters DFU mode, it will accept a new firmware image over a USB cable. Before any firmware image is loaded by an iPhone, the device first checks whether the firmware has a valid signature from Apple. This signature check is why the FBI cannot load new software onto an iPhone on their own—the FBI does not have the secret keys that Apple uses to sign firmware.

This opens up a few questions. Could this work on newer devices with the enhanced encryption of the Secure Enclave? How can Apple pair the device and replace the firmware in the first place? Would they be using the shooter’s computer? An over-the-air update? Apple says that all devices (with or without the Secure Enclave) are vulnerable to this kind of attack, but declined to comment on the specific technical methods, a position I initially disagreed with, but on reflection is probably the right move for reasons we will get to in a moment.

Thus the FBI wants a new version of iOS, signed by Apple and installed on the device, that removes limitations on their attempts to brute-force the password.

Why this matters

Legal precedent is like a glacier, slowly building over time until it becomes nigh unstoppable. Major issues like this are first, and sometimes ultimately, decided on a series of small steps that build on each other. It’s the reason the NRA fights any attempts at gun control, since they fear a slow build, not a single small law.

The crux of this round of the encryption debate is if companies should be forced to build tools to circumvent their customers’ security. If the answer is “yes,” it could be a small step to “should they just build these tools into the OS from the start?”

I have no doubt the FBI deliberately chose the highest-profile domestic terrorism case in possibly a decade. We, average citizens, want the FBI to stop this sort of evil. We don’t necessarily see this one case as applying to our lives and our rights. Why the big deal? What if the FBI could find the terrorists’ contacts and stop other attacks?

What matters is if we have a right to the security and privacy of our devices and communications.

But the truth is, no legal case applies in a vacuum. If this goes through, if Apple is forced to assist, it will open a floodgate of law enforcement requests. Then what about civil cases? Opening a phone to support a messy divorce and child custody battle? Or what about requests from other nations, especially places like China and the UAE that already forced BlackBerry and others to compromise the security of their customers?

And once the scale of these requests increases, as a security professional I guarantee the tools will leak, the techniques will be exploited by criminals, and our collective security will decline. It really doesn’t matter if it’s the iPhone 5c or 6s. It really doesn’t matter if this is about dead terrorists or a drug dealer. It doesn’t matter what specific circumvention Apple is being asked to create.

What matters is if we have a right to the security and privacy of our devices, and of our communications, which are also under assault. If we have the right to tools to defend ourselves from the government and criminals alike. Yes, these tools will be sometimes used for the worst of crimes, but they’re also fundamental to our civil rights, freedom of discourse, and our ability to protect our digital lives from the less impactful, but far more frequent criminal attacks.

This situation was engineered by the FBI and Department of Justice for the maximum impact and chances of success. Apple is fighting, and as a security professional it’s my obligation to support their position, and stronger security.

Comcast’s Xfinity home alarms can be disabled by wireless jammers

Comcast-security

If you trust your ISP to provide Network and Physical Security, you have a fool for an adviser

Quote

Some intruders no longer need to come in through the kitchen window. Instead, they can waltz right in through the front door, even when a home is protected by an internet-connected alarm system. A vulnerability in Comcast’s Xfinity Home Security System could allow attackers to open protected doors and windows without triggering alarms, researchers with cybersecurity firm Rapid7 wrote in a blog post today.

The security bug relates back to the way in which the system’s sensors communicate with their home base station. Comcast’s system uses the popular ZigBee protocol, but doesn’t maintain the proper checks and balances, allowing a given sensor to go minutes or even hours without checking in. The biggest hurdle in exploiting the vulnerability is finding or building a radio jammer, which are illegal under federal law. Attackers can also circumvent alarms with a software-based de-authentication attack on the ZigBee protocol itself, although that method requires more expertise. Attackers would also need to know a house was using the Xfinity system before attempting to break in, a major hurdle in exploiting the finding.

“The sensor had no memory of the break-in happening”

To prove his findings, Rapid7 researcher Phil Bosco simulated a radio jamming attack on one of his system’s armed window sensors. While jamming the sensor’s signal, he opened a monitored window. The sensor said it was armed, but it failed to detect anything out of the ordinary. But perhaps even more worrisome than the active intrusion itself is that the sensor had no memory of it happening and took anywhere from several minutes to three hours to come back online and reestablish communication with its home base.

If you let in the Feds, you’ll let in anyone

Quote

Juniper’s VPN security hole is proof that govt backdoors are bonkers

Juniper’s security nightmare gets worse and worse as experts comb the ScreenOS firmware in its old NetScreen firewalls.

Just before the weekend, the networking biz admitted there had been “unauthorized” changes to its software, allowing hackers to commandeer equipment and decrypt VPN traffic.

In response, Rapid7 reverse engineered the code, and found a hardwired password that allows anyone to log into the boxes as an administrator via SSH or Telnet.

Now an analysis of NetScreen’s encryption algorithms by Matthew Green, Ralf-Philipp Weinmann, and others, has found another major problem.

“For the past several years, it appears that Juniper NetScreen devices have incorporated a potentially backdoored random number generator, based on the NSA’s Dual EC DRBG algorithm,” wrote Green, a cryptographer at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, US.

“At some point in 2012, the NetScreen code was further subverted by some unknown party, so that the very same backdoor could be used to eavesdrop on NetScreen connections. While this alteration was not authorized by Juniper, it’s important to note that the attacker made no major code changes to the encryption mechanism – they only changed parameters.”

The Dual EC DRBG random number generator was championed by the NSA, although researchers who studied the spec found that data encrypted using the generator could be decoded by clever eavesdroppers.

ScreenOS uses the Dual EC DRBG in its VPN technology, but as a secondary mechanism: it’s used to prime a fast 3DES-based number generator called ANSI X9.17, which is secure enough to kill off any cryptographic weaknesses introduced by Dual EC. Phew, right? Bullet dodged, huh?

No. In Juniper’s case there’s a problem. The encrypted communications can still be decoded using just 30 or so bytes of raw Dual EC output. And, lo, conveniently, there’s a bug in ScreenOS that will cause the firmware to leak that very sequence of numbers, undermining the security of the system.

Also, worryingly, ScreenOS does not use Dual EC with the special constant Q defined by the US government – it uses its own value.

Armed with those 30 bytes of seed data, and knowledge of Juniper’s weird Dual EC parameters, eavesdroppers can decrypt intercepted VPN traffic.

….
Green points out that this is a classic example of why backdoors are a bad idea all round. It’s something politicians and law enforcement officials may want to ponder the next time they call for mandatory government access to encrypted communications.

If they are going to build backdoors into encryption, such as by fiddling with the mathematics or sliding in convenient bugs, someone else is going to find the way in.

Hillary Clinton: Stop helping terrorists, Silicon Valley – weaken your encryption

Sorry Hillary, you are just proving yourself as clueless as ever.

There remains no evidence the attackers used encryption to communicate. The Paris police found unencrypted text messages concerned the attack, and a public Facebook post from one of the attackers has also been uncovered. Early reports that the attackers used PlayStation 4s to communicate surreptitiously have also been dismissed.
it now appears that the attackers communicated via unencrypted SMS and did little to hide their tracks. On top of that, as Ryan Gallagher at the Intercept notes, some of the attackers were already known to law enforcement and the intelligence community as possible problems. But they were still able to plan and carry out the attacks. Even more to the point, Gallagher points out that after looking at the 10 most recent high profile terrorist attacks, the same can be said for each of them: sources: 1) 2)

Time and again throughout history, governments have used fear to strip people of their rights and increase their power. This is no different. This is a failure of intelligence. These thugs are smart and use face to face communications more than anything else. Studies (read more) have shown that the US Gov’s massive hoovering of data has had the perverse affect of making them more blind to what is really happening – than the other way around.

And I leave leave you this: If the gov weakens encryption, how long will it take for other miscreants to find the holes and exploit them for nefarious reasons? No long. That is why corporations are pushing back. Hillary, if you want to lead, better do your homework instead of pandering to fear.