Tag: privacy

AI program can steal your password by listening to the sounds your keyboard makes when you type it

Research published by Cornell University showed that scientists programmed an artificial intelligence system that listened to people typing their passwords and was able to correctly identify the keys with 95% accuracy.

The group programmed an AI system to listen to a typed password on MacBook Pro keys over both a phone and a Zoom call, according to Daily Fetched.

The AI model was trained by pressing each of the MacBook Pro’s 36 keys 25 times each and recording the sounds. The sounds were fed into the AI so it could correctly identify each key.

Over the phone, the program correctly identified the keys with 95% accuracy, while over Zoom the number dropped slightly to 93%. The phone was placed about six and a half inches away from the keyboard, according to the Daily Mail.

“When trained on keystrokes recorded by a nearby phone, the classifier achieved an accuracy of 95 percent, the highest accuracy seen without the use of a language model,” the study reportedly said.

Keep reading

The Government Wants to Turn Blockchain Firms into Servants of the State

In recent years, blockchain surveillance (BS) companies have become increasingly important players in the cryptocurrency industry. Their business model consists in developing proprietary software that collects and interprets public data available on public blockchains and in selling their services to governments, banks, exchanges, and others that need access to this data. Usually, governments are interested in collecting information about financial crimes, while other institutional players use BS companies for compliance, especially with regard to customer due diligence. This article argues that BS companies can be understood as governmentalities.

Michael Rectenwald deploys this term to “refer to corporations and other non-state actors who actively undertake state functions.” The partnership between the state and BS companies threatens cryptocurrency users’ privacy and their ability to transact freely, away from the prying eyes of unwanted third parties.

Keep reading

Thousands of Russian officials to give up iPhones over US spying fears

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.comT&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/6567e7f2-c5fb-4da4-bd95-bf7ceef54038

Russian authorities have banned thousands of officials and state employees from using iPhones and other Apple products as a crackdown against the American tech company intensifies over espionage concerns.  The trade ministry said that from Monday it will ban all use of iPhones for “work purposes”. The digital development ministry as well as Rostec, the state-owned company that is under sanction by the west for supplying Russia’s war machine in Ukraine, have said they will follow suit or have already introduced bans. The ban on iPhones, iPad tablets and other Apple devices at leading ministries and institutions reflects growing concern in the Kremlin and the Federal Security Service spy agency over a surge in espionage activity by US intelligence agencies against Russian state institutions. “Security officials in ministries — these are FSB employees who hold civilian positions such as deputy ministers — announced that iPhones were no longer considered safe and that alternatives should be sought,” said a person close to a government agency that has banned Apple products. A month after President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February last year, he signed a decree demanding that organisations involved in “critical information infrastructure” — a broad term that includes healthcare, science and the financial sector — switch to domestically developed software by 2025. The move reflected Moscow’s longstanding desire to make state institutions switch away from foreign technology. Some Russian analysts suggested the current edict will do little to assuage suspicions that western intelligence agencies are able to access sensitive information on Russian government activity.

Keep reading

A Reddit User Admitted To Pirating a Movie 12 Years Ago. Movie Studios Want To Unmask Him.

In what appears to be an escalating incursion into a user’s digital privacy, a collective of film companies continue to implore the court to compel Reddit to surrender its users’ personal details. This move is part of an ongoing piracy liability case against Internet Service Providers. Reddit, however, steadfastly resists, staunchly defending its users’ rights to anonymous speech.

While governments and law enforcement agencies have increasingly sought user details from Reddit — with over 1,000 requests, 277 search warrants, and 582 subpoenas last year, Torrent Freak reported — Reddit has staunchly resisted, drawing a firm line in the sand to protect its users’ privacy.

The battle over privacy rights came to a head earlier this year when film companies, involved in litigation against ISP RCN, attempted to extract personal details of Reddit users via a DMCA subpoena. Reddit objected, criticizing the subpoena as a sweeping and excessive invasion of user privacy, rather than a reasonable search for evidence. Reddit made a stand, yielding the details of only one user and rejecting the rest, underscoring its commitment to the right to anonymous speech.

The court sided with Reddit, ruling that the right to anonymity outweighed the copyright holders’ interests. US District Court Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler further reinforced this stance, suggesting the film companies could obtain necessary information through alternative channels, such as directly from the ISP in question.

Undeterred by the earlier legal setback, the film companies are now making a similar push against ISP Grande, targeting a fresh group of Reddit users. Reddit, maintaining its position as a defender of user privacy, declined to release the requested information, triggering another motion to compel in court.

The film companies assert that they have exhausted all other options for evidence and insist on the need to reveal Reddit users’ identities. However, their earlier attempt to contact Grande’s repeatedly pirating subscribers failed to yield useful results, forcing them to resort to targeting Reddit users once again.

In response to this potential breach of privacy, Reddit has reiterated its commitment to preserving its users’ rights to anonymous speech. Reddit contends that the film companies have not presented a convincing case to justify the infringement of privacy, arguing that its users are not an “irreplaceable source” of evidence.

Reddit has further pointed out that the film companies already procured the identifying details of 118 of Grande’s most frequent pirating IP addresses. This action, according to Reddit, debunks the claim that violating user privacy is the only path to necessary evidence.

Reddit also questioned the film companies’ approach, noting they have yet to subpoena the Grande subscribers they contacted, an alternative step that could have been taken before pursuing Reddit users.

The film companies have singled out a Reddit user, “xBROKEx,” citing a 12-year-old comment admitting to pirating the movie The Expendables.

Keep reading

The Ranks of Gun Owners Grow, and So Does Their Resistance to Scrutiny

Believe it or not, people are reluctant to tell total strangers about their potentially controversial activities. In particular, Rutgers University researchers say, gun ownership is something many Americans decline to reveal when questioned by people they don’t know. That’s especially true of women and minorities newly among the ranks of gun owners amidst the chaos of recent years. Academics are unhappy that privacy-minded respondents impair their understanding of the world we live in, but such evasion is an inevitable consequence of decades of fiery debate and punitive gun policies.

Fibbing to Nosy Strangers

“Some individuals are falsely denying firearm ownership, resulting in research not accurately capturing the experiences of all firearm owners in the U.S.,” says Allison Bond, a doctoral student with Rutgers University’s New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center and lead author of “Predicting Potential Underreporting of Firearm Ownership in a Nationally Representative Sample,” published last month in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. “More concerningly, these individuals are not being reached with secure firearm storage messaging and firearm safety resources, which may result in them storing their firearms in an unsecure manner, which in turn increases the risk for firearm injury and death.”

Bond frames the problem of dishonesty among survey respondents as posing a danger to those surveyed since they don’t receive proper firearm safety information. But her deeper concern is with the validity of research into firearms culture and policy in a country where experts don’t have anywhere near as good a handle on the prevalence of gun ownership as they had believed.

“The implications of false denials of firearms ownership are substantial,” claim the authors. “First, such practices would result in an underestimation of firearms ownership rates and diminish our capacity to test the association between firearm access and various firearm violence-related outcomes. Furthermore, such practices would skew our understanding of the demographics of firearm ownership, such that we would overemphasize the characteristics of those more apt to disclose. Third, the mere existence of a large group of individuals who falsely deny firearm ownership highlights that intervention aimed at promoting firearm safety (e.g., secure firearm storage) may fail to reach communities in need.”

It should be emphasized that the report authors didn’t conclusively identify anybody who denied gun ownership as a gun owner. Instead, the report dealt in probabilities, with the researchers building profiles of confirmed gun owners. They then applied the profiles across their sample of 3,500 respondents to estimate who was likely fibbing about not owning guns. The results depend on the probability threshold applied, but they came up with 1,206 confirmed owners, between 1,243 and 2,059 non-owners, and between 220 and 1,036 potential but secretive owners lying about their status.

Keep reading

Police will be allowed to spy on suspects by remotely activating their phones’ camera, microphone and GPS under new French laws dubbed a ‘snoopers’ charter’

French police should be able to spy on suspects by remotely activating the camera, microphone and GPS of their phones and other devices, lawmakers agreed late Wednesday.

Part of a wider justice reform bill, the spying provision has been attacked by the left and rights defenders as an authoritarian snoopers’ charter, though Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti insists it would affect only ‘dozens of cases a year’.

Covering laptops, cars and other connected objects as well as phones, the measure would allow geolocation of suspects in crimes punishable by at least five years’ jail.

Devices could also be remotely activated to record sound and images of people suspected of terror offenses, as well as delinquency and organised crime.

The provisions ‘raise serious concerns over infringements of fundamental liberties,’ digital rights group La Quadrature du Net wrote in a May statement.

It cited the ‘right to security, right to a private life and to private correspondence’ and ‘the right to come and go freely’, calling the proposal part of a ‘slide into heavy-handed security’.

Keep reading

UK Home Secretary Uses Idea of Keeping Children Safe as a Justification To Demand Ban on Private Messaging

It would be extremely refreshing to hear a government official in the UK, or in a number of other countries, make a, “think of the encryption” plea – which would show they understand the very fundamentals of a safe and privacy-preserving internet.

But instead, we are getting more and more “think of the children” platitudes – as always, designed not to actually do that, but mask other, controversial and unpopular policies.

This time, it is UK’s Home Secretary Suella Braverman who claims that her opposition to Facebook’s slow-moving, alleged attempt to make a number of its products safe via implementing end-to-end encryption has to do with fears that children might get abused online.

Any tech-literate person would present the big picture, and argue quite the opposite, but Braverman is either not one of those, or elects to pretend not to be, in order to serve a policy that is staunchly anti-encryption, for a whole different reason – summed up, that technology stands severely annoyingly, no doubt, in the way of governments’ wholesale mass surveillance of everybody on the internet.

And what better place to twist the narrative about fears of awful things like child grooming and sexual abuse – perversely juxtaposed with actually improving internet security, i.e., encryption – than a get-together of the (in)famous “Five Eyes,” held in one eager member – New Zealand.

Braverman made an effort to write to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and, ignoring the reality of what an internet without encryption would turn into, tried, no doubt, above all to pull at her constituents’ heartstrings:

“As a mother to young children,” the politician stomped her feet, “I won’t stand by idly and watch this happen,” The Daily Mail reported.

“This” would be – platforms like Facebook Messenger and Instagram Direct introducing secure communications, so that third parties – be they criminals, malign (foreign) actors, or (sometimes (effectively malign) domestic law enforcement – cannot just swoop in and use personal information in any way they please, including to directly harm those participating, children included, by gaining unfettered access to all their data.

Keep reading

Feds May Need Warrants To Search Cell Phones at the Border After All

The role of smart phones as snitches is well-established, with people paying for their handy communications capabilities while the treacherous devices track us and reveal details of our lives. Even as the government spoofs cellphone towers to locate phone users, or purchases commercial data about our movements, border agents also insist they can, at will, search the phones of Americans returning home. But last month a federal judge ruled that a free pass to probe electronic devices is too broad, and that Americans enjoy some protections at the border of the sort they have elsewhere.

In this latest case, United States v. Smith, Jatiek Smith, the subject of a federal investigation, was stopped at the airport in Newark on his return from Jamaica. As detailed by U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, federal agents “forced him to turn over his cellphone and its password. They reviewed the phone manually and created and saved an electronic copy of it as it existed as of that date and time – all without a search warrant.”

Wait. No warrant? Unfortunately, yes.

Keep reading

The US Is Openly Stockpiling Dirt on All Its Citizens

THE UNITED STATES government has been secretly amassing a “large amount” of “sensitive and intimate information” on its own citizens, a group of senior advisers informed Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, more than a year ago. 

The size and scope of the government effort to accumulate data revealing the minute details of Americans’ lives are described soberly and at length by the director’s own panel of experts in a newly declassified report. Haines had first tasked her advisers in late 2021 with untangling a web of secretive business arrangements between commercial data brokers and US intelligence community members. 

What that report ended up saying constitutes a nightmare scenario for privacy defenders. 

“This report reveals what we feared most,” says Sean Vitka, a policy attorney at the nonprofit Demand Progress. “Intelligence agencies are flouting the law and buying information about Americans that Congress and the Supreme Court have made clear the government should not have.” 

In the shadow of years of inaction by the US Congress on comprehensive privacy reform, a surveillance state has been quietly growing in the legal system’s cracks. Little deference is paid by prosecutors to the purpose or intent behind limits traditionally imposed on domestic surveillance activities. More craven interpretations of aging laws are widely used to ignore them. As the framework guarding what privacy Americans do have grows increasingly frail, opportunities abound to split hairs in court over whether such rights are even enjoyed by our digital counterparts.

“I’ve been warning for years that if using a credit card to buy an American’s personal information voids their Fourth Amendment rights, then traditional checks and balances for government surveillance will crumble,” Ron Wyden, a US senator from Oregon, says. 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) did not immediately respond to a request for comment. WIRED was unable to reach any members of the senior advisory panel, whose names have been redacted in the report. Former members have included ex-CIA officials of note and top defense industry leaders.

Keep reading