Today I was chatting with a probable Russian troll on LinkedIn, in a discussion group for the Russian International Affairs Council.

Supposedly the group was formed to discuss Russian International Affairs, after all it’s in the title, yes?

In my experience and in my personal and professional opinion, this is one of the final bastions of educated Russian trolls, with a mix of professional trolls and pro-Russian educated trolls. I compare this to LiveLeak and many of the pro-Russian trolls are still there, acting stupid, but the professional trolls have vanished.  Incidentally, LiveLeak was bought by RT in 2014.

Today one of the Russian trolls had the audacity, the guts, and I’d say balls but supposedly this person is female, to suggest I should read an article’s comment section. I’ll call her Elaine.  The article which she pointed me to contained no reference – at all – to the subject of the discussion. I pointed this out to her.   Here is a copy and paste of exactly what she wrote: “And you Should read the comments to the article, Joel.”  I responded with a short note about the difference between an article and a comment section.

Elaine [Redacted], apparently you misread what I wrote: “Please, if you’re going to try to smear the US, please make sure the ARTICLE [edited for emphasis] contains a reference to the US.” Article. Article means written by a recognized author. An article has an author who puts his or her reputation on the line, usually follows journalistic rules and is accountable for their words.

Comments are written by trolls, who often are anonymous, fake, and/or a professional troll. Many real news sites are now blocking comments precisely due to the trolls.

*crickets chirping*  No response.  Apparently she recognized she was heading down a dark road.  That or she was completely overwhelmed by my superior knowledge and logic…  *grin*  Not.  She returned, later, ignoring my comment but pushing an entirely new subject.

This is the current state of trolls and comment sections.

But this was not the case in 2014 and much of 2015.  Then, Russian trolls were out in huge numbers, overwhelming any opposing opinions.

Troll History

Trolls are not a recent phenomena, even professional paid trolls have been around for much of the early 2000s, and trolls have been around since the early 1990s. I toured a media research facility in the Washington DC area in 2006 and was shocked to see professional paid commenters in actions.  My first confirmation of paid professional trolls.

Fast forward to 2013.  I began seeing Russian trolls in ever-increasing numbers in late 2013 and then in crushing numbers in early 2014.

Russian trolls and pro-Russian trolls and professional Russian trolls from 55 Savushkina Street, last known home of the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, Russia, simply overwhelmed any opposing opinions.  They were so rabid, however, that when I expressed a supporting opinion that was less than ‘infatuated with Putin’, I received hundreds of hateful responses. Innocent questions were almost immediately stomped on, I couldn’t honestly find answers to questions by simply asking a question.

Russian Trolls perform one or more of four missions:

1. Overwhelm and suppress opposing opinions.  This is also accomplished by attacking dissenters, usually using hateful or obscene words.
2. Sidetrack or distract opposing opinions.
3. Support Russian positions.
4. Divide, undermine and weaken nations, alliances and groups ‘opposing’ Russia.

Trolls and Russian media and Television receive Temniki or Synchronization/Guidance Sheets from a Russian IW Operations and Planning Center (my term), probably in the Kremlin.

Here is another perspective of the same centralized operation controlled by the Kremlin, please excuse the poor English.  There temniki, which the Kremlin media brainwashed Russians.

Journalists recognize that in many cases top editors and managers have no option but to fulfill the requests outlined in the Temniki or other demands issued by the Presidential Administration. – https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/ukraine0303/Ukraine0303-04.htm

Russian Professor Explains Media Manipulation.

Stand by for more.

By Pamela Engel

An ISIS-affiliated account on the messaging app Telegram has sent out a message about Anonymous’ threat to launch its “biggest operation ever” against the terrorist group.

After the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night that left at least 129 people dead and hundreds more injured, the hacking collective Anonymous posted a video in which a person claiming to represent the group said, “Anonymous from all over the world will hunt you down.”

“We will launch the biggest operation ever against you,” the masked person said. “Expect massive cyberattacks. War is declared. Get prepared.”

A Telegram channel that is believed to be affiliated with ISIS hackers then sent out a message to its followers instructing them how to keep from getting hacked by Anonymous.

“The #Anonymous hackers threatened in new video release that they will carry out a major hack operation on the Islamic state (idiots),” the statement read in part.

ISIS then asks “What they gonna hack?” noting that so far Anonymous had hacked only ISIS-affiliated Twitter accounts and emails.

The message went on to provide “instructions” on how to avoid potential hacks: Don’t open any links unless sure of the source. Change IP addresses “constantly.” And “do not talk to people [you] don’t know on Telegram” or through Twitter direct messaging.

The message, which was posted in both Arabic and English, was then forwarded around to various other ISIS-affiliated Telegram channels.

Anonymous started targeting extremists in January after the terrorist attacks on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. The hackers worked to identify ISIS-linked social-media accounts and take down extremist websites.

ISIS supporters also used Telegram channels affiliated with the group to coordinate a social-media response to the Paris attacks on Friday:

Eight terrorists took hostages, detonated suicide vests, and shot people in attacks across Parison Friday night. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Seven of the attackers are dead, but the police are seeking an eighth man they believe was involved in the attacks.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-anonymous-response-paris-attacks-2015-11?utm_content=buffer70618&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Just because I believe this image will be deleted, I saved it to publish in this blog.

A very good friend today labeled this picture: “Disgusting propaganda to demonise migrants and Muslims from the Daily Mail today.”

I’m not sure I agree.  I believe this picture accurately reflects the feelings and emotions of most people in the world today, after the Syrian Refugee Crisis and the attacks in Paris.  I believe the majority of Syrian refugees are peaceful.

Truly, the extremists are rats among the innocent refugees.  The difference, in real life, is that they all look alike. But this does reflect the reality?

Is this disgusting, or is this reality, or is this representative?  Is this even propaganda?

We are starting to lose faith in the media.

The media is being used to foment divisiveness, confusion, anger, and frustration.  Russia, not mentioned in most of these stories, is the main beneficiary of all these stories. This may well be, and probably is, highly effective propaganda also known as Active Measures.  This was a technique used by the KGB and has often been used against Ukraine. Perhaps Russia is taking advantage of the ISIS attacks in Paris to fuel the fire.

Disinformation is rampant, faked stories and pictures flood out screens, changing the perspective of stories, one way or the other. This is skewing our perception of our world and diminishing our faith in journalism.

I am not referring to Russian propaganda, which is deliberate and usually obvious.  I cannot rule out that this may well be faked Russian propaganda, especially when it promotes movement towards Russian goals.  Russia has done this in the past, so I cannot rule out this possibility and I must continually remind people, this may well be the work of Russia.

But other news services may be doing this.  Trolls may be doing this. Countries may be doing this…

Russia is often my main suspect. Their troll headquarters in St. Petersburg has a department dedicated to falsifying images, creating video to be used entirely out of its original context and flooding unsuspecting and often cooperative Russian proxy news sites with deliberate disinformation and propaganda.

In this case the video originated in 2009 and is deliberately used to foment hatred of Muslims, especially ISIS, in the post-Paris attacks world.

Why?

Many right-wing conservatives in the United States prefer engaging ISIS much more aggressively than US’ current strategy. 30 of 50 US governors have already declared they do not want Syrian refugees in their state.  Already others have demonstrated that legally, state governors cannot say no.  This dovetails exactly with Russian goals, seeking to sow divisiveness in the United States.

Globally, there are many who do not want Syrian refugees in their country and will use whatever means necessary to stem the tide of incoming Syrian refugees and Muslims in general. Stories of race riots in Sweden fill some news sites, wholly fabricated.  Again, Russia directly benefits from stories of Western countries and alliances in disarray and internal division.  In Russian strategy, this is one of Russia’s three major goals, Russian perceived power will increase with Western division, lessening Western perceived power and decreasing Western unity.

By Yanan Wang November 18 at 3:23 AM

One video that was widely shared in the aftermath of the Paris attacks shows a scene of revelry. Men gathered in front of London’s Tooting Broadway Station cheer and fist-pump the air. Full of smiles, some have climbed onto a statue and are waving green flags above their heads.

The title of the clip posted to Facebook: “Muslims Around The World Celebrate The Islamic Victory in Paris France.”

The video was rapidly disseminated, and with it, the outrage.

Social media users pointed to the clip as evidence of violent tendencies in Muslims, while others cited it as a reason to be wary of Syrian refugees. Until Tuesday, only a few ventured to bring up its dubious nature.

After all, the video actually has nothing to do with terrorism — it was filmed in 2009, not last weekend, and it shows Pakistanis celebrating a cricket match victory following the ICC World Twenty20 tournament.

A closer examination of the footage reveals that this context makes a lot more sense. The men are chanting “Pakistan,” wearing green clothing and holding up the green crescent moon flag of Pakistan. The flag of the Islamic State is black and marked by a white circle containing the Seal of Muhammad.

But still the video was shared as depicted as a perverse celebration of tragedy, generating nearly 500,000 views within hours of being posted on the personal Facebook page of a user named Jean-Baptiste Kim.

Though it has since been removed from Facebook, it can still be viewed on YouTube with the incendiary title.

Others have sought to dispel the false claims around the clip, though not nearly to the same viral effect as the original condemnatory posts.
It isn’t the only piece of fake “evidence” for Muslim joy over the Paris attacks to have surfaced in the past few days. Internet users are also sharing an image of a bearded man standing atop a French flag while holding up his right fist. He wears a robe that resembles traditional Islamic garbs for men.

“Oh Look another ‘Moderate Muslim’ Celebrating the Paris Terrorist attacks…,” read one tweet of the photo that has been shared over 1,000 times.

But this image, too, is dated and has no connection to the Paris attacks. A Google search confirms that the photo is two years old, according to The Independent.
Over the weekend, online hoaxers also sought to besmirch the reputation of Veerender Jubbal, a Canadian Sikh man whose smiling bathroom selfie was digitally altered to make it look like he was wearing a suicide bomber vest and holding up the Koran.

In the undoctored photo, Jubbal is wearing only a blue plaid shirt and holding up an iPad.
The Post’s Soraya McDonald reported that a Twitter user with the (now-suspended) handle @abutalut8 had posted the photo along with the caption, “BREAKING, one Islamic State attacker in #ParisAttacks was a sikh convert to Islam.”

A few European news outlets ran the photo as if it were real, while Jubbal, a freelance writer, took to Twitter to clear his name.

“Let us start with basics,” he wrote. “Never been to Paris. Am a Sikh dude with a turban. Lives in Canada.”

While these social media campaigns use fake material, the Islamophobic threats that Muslims have faced since the Paris attacks are real.

Over the weekend, a Canadian mosque was set ablaze and two others in Florida were threatened.

“I’m a red-blooded American watching the news in France,” said one voice mail message left at a St. Petersburg mosque. “Guard your children. I don’t care if you’re extremists or not… Get out of my f—ing country.”

This Monday, a member of the Islamic Center of Pflugerville outside Austin arrived at his mosque to find a torn up Koran covered in feces at the entrance.

Police are investigating the incident as a hate crime, KVUE-TV reports.

A hijab-wearing Toronto woman was attacked Tuesday while going to pick up her son from school, the Associated Press reports. She was punched and kicked by two men who yelled slurs, tried to rip off her hijab and stole her cellphone and some cash.

“There’s no doubt that this is hate-motivated,” police constable Victor Kwong told the AP.

The woman’s brothers told reporters in an emotional address that she had been called “a terrorist” and told to go back home.

In North Carolina, an Ethiopian American Uber driver told WBTV that he was attacked by a passenger who thought he was Muslim.

“He said he’s gonna shoot me right in the face. He’s gonna strangle me,” Samson Woldemichael, a Christian, said of the encounter. “I asked him why. He was calling me too many bad word names…insulting me. He told me I was a Muslim.”

After the man threatened to kill him, Woldemichael asked him to get out of the car, but the passenger refused to leave. He wanted Woldemichael to get out instead.

Then, the passenger began hitting him repeatedly on the forehead. He didn’t get out of the car until Woldemichael started honking his horn in an attempt to get the attention of passersby. As the passenger was leaving, Woldemichael said, “He was saying he would shoot me and he was acting like he’s hiding his hand in his back, so he was acting like he was armed.”

The Uber driver, who arrived in the U.S. from Ethiopia eight years ago, told WBTV: “There are people who are not originally from here but who are really Americans in their hearts. They love the system…They believe in America, so it’s better to work with them than generalizing them and attacking them.”

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/18/fake-video-images-claim-to-show-muslim-joy-over-paris-attacks/?hpid=hp_no-name_morning-mix-story-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Are you worried he will next attack the Baltics?

If he will not be stopped in Ukraine, he will go further.

So Article 5 and NATO are not enough?

No. Everybody declares that NATO’s Article 5 will take place. But it will not stop Putin from his plans if he does not see real actions from the European and world leaders. They are only talking. We need to stop him in Ukraine. And until now, that is not understood. That is why I am saying that in Europe today, leadership is taken by Putin, not by the West.

Is Putin’s aim to split Europe?

The danger of Russia’s behavior today is not smaller than what we have with ISIS [the Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria.

So you think both ISIS and Russia are terrorists?

Yes. I think that Russia is terrorizing its neighbors and using terrorist methods.

But the world is more concerned with ISIS.

Of course. It is the primary goal. Unfortunately, this is a perfect position for Putin to do what he wants. In reality, these so-called peace negotiations in Minsk were done under the ultimatum of Putin. Western countries and the European Union gave into his conditions, meaning practically the partitioning of Ukraine.

The U.S. sent Ukraine MREs [meals ready to eat] and they were delivered in German trucks so as not to offend Putin.

Why are we so busy trying not to offend Putin, who is today sending his troops to kill and occupy Ukrainian territory? Why are we not sensitive about what Ukrainians are feeling? Sooner or later we will call him a terrorist and a criminal . . .

Does the situation remind you of the Sudetenland?

The situation before the Second World War? Yes, of course. We with open eyes are allowing the partition of Ukraine.

Do you feel you have enough protection after the Wales summit?

After Wales, NATO is revived, not sleeping any more. We have something to improve our security. We need to invest more. But how much time do we have?

So the sanctions are not hurting Putin?

They are not sufficient. But if he will go further, maybe countries will apply more serious sanctions.
The head of Ukrainian intelligence told a U.S. official that they had to agree to the cease-fire.

Yes. The Europeans and other countries asked [Ukrainian President Petro] Poroshenko to agree to conditions that were unacceptable because [they amounted to a partition] of Ukrainian territory.

So Russia got Crimea and now eastern Ukraine?

With the applause of European and other leaders in the world because they didn’t help Ukraine at all.

You worry about your own country.

All neighboring countries to Russia are under threat now. He is threatening them and joking that they are not real states.

Will the result be a war?

We can avoid a war. If both sides are ready to go to war, there will never be a war. If Russia is willing to go to war and the West avoids it, Russia will go as far as it will. . . .

The U.S. appears to be more interested in making a nuclear deal with Iran.

That is a problem. If we see that for some reason we are selling out independent countries, what moral values are we fighting for?

You think that is true?

When I see how the process is going, it is very much possible. The conditions of the cease-fire were done on Russia’s proposal. The West is not militarily supporting Ukraine. Russia is allowed to do whatever it wants on Ukraine’s territory. It is a shame on all the Western leaders to allow an aggressor to do what he wants with a sovereign country in the 21st century.

I am happy Obama finally showed leadership on Iraq and Syria. I hope this will allow him to show leadership on Ukraine. Leadership comes with learning. You are not born a leader but you can become a leader.

That leaves Lithuania in a difficult position.

We were occupied for 50 years, and we know how to deal with this neighbor. What is surprising is that countries far away that have never been touched by aggressive Russian policy are afraid of dealing with Russia.

Only countries with a border, Baltic states and Poland, are vocal. It is our one tool to fight Russia: to be vocal and courageous and to shame leaders of the West for not taking the responsibility for protecting freedom, sovereignty and democracy in Europe.

By Emma L Briant

November 18, 2015 9.35am EST

Lecturer in Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield

Already the tremors of recent days are shaking fear-fuelled ideologies out of the woodwork. In the US, senator Marco Rubio renewed talk of a “clash of civilisations”. Political and media rhetoric of this kind simply amplifies the terrorists’ power by claiming that they represent an entire “civilisation”, generating fear and therefore the impact of their atrocities.

Such rhetoric risks alienating moderate Muslims, producing “us v them” polarisation and calls for the harsh retaliations that the terrorists are seeking to bolster their recruitment drives. Sadly, the minimal press coverage given in the West to recent terrorist attacks in Iraq and Lebanon aids those trying to pretend that this is violence perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims, rather than showing us the reality of shared victimization.

We will continue to fail in fighting violent extremism if we do not begin by addressing the real-world circumstances on which it is founded, including inequality, poverty and social injustice. In the UK, the right-wing media and political opportunists have also predictably attempted to hijack the tragedy to push an anti-immigration agenda and fear is being spread by the militarisation of policing on our streets and imagery that recalls Nazi propaganda at its worst.

It is sadly predictable that the scapegoats being blamed en masse for the Paris attack are the refugee victims of Islamic State, something IS clearly intended. As my research with Glasgow Media Group shows, media misrepresentation of refugees and migrants is nothing new and has been used to drive through legislation that has hampered integration in our communities, including austerity cuts to public services, harsher conditions for migrants and attacks on the Human Rights Act.

In this climate, calls to close borders and blame refugees for the problems that they too are seeking to escape, may score easy points for some politicians or sell papers in the wake of an attack, but they won’t deal with the problems which led to the rise of IS and the recent migrant crisis. In fact, such calls actually distract us from the foreign policy failures that fuelled the rise of IS and have driven forced migration to Europe. The media’s bolstering of anti-migrant feeling also prevents resources going to help allieviate the poverty that makes refugees so vulnerable to exploitation.

New ideas needed

While I was researching my recent book: “Propaganda and Counter-terrorism: Strategies for Global Change” I interviewed journalists, PR professionals and foreign policy, defence and intelligence personnel from the US and UK. It worried me that over the past 14 years, US and British government propaganda strategies and counter-terrorism policies appear to have been produced and reproduced in a bubble. Strategy is informed by a small circle of government-funded or affiliated terrorism experts, think-tanks and academics – with similar ideas and objectives.

These experts – and, of course, the politicians they advise – are over-reported in the media, too. This leads to the recirculation of the same ideas that have repeatedly failed us. The latest example of this is the UK government’s Prevent strategy – an ill-conceived programme which has been criticised by teachers, academics and NGOs for its harassment of Muslim communities.

Such strategies increase tensions in our communities, stifle academic freedom in schools and universities and increase feelings of alienation among Muslims in the UK. The all-too-frequent refusal of both the British and US governments to listen to independent social science stifles their understanding of the causes and therefore solutions for dealing with terrorism.

‘Huge disconnects’

The bubble in which US and UK governments’ counter-terrorism policies have been created perpetuates a model of communication that is doomed to fail. For the book, former CENTCOM commander, Admiral William Fallon told me that the “huge disconnects” that exist in understanding can be addressed in Iraq through “messaging”. He said: “You’ve got to start figuring out how you’re going to get in the people’s heads to get them to do what you want them to do.”

Both media and policymakers repeatedly ask: “How can we win the propaganda war?” By reissuing the same old calls for the same failed strategies? I would argue not.

Top-down propaganda and a refusal to “listen” cannot create lasting peace and stability. It divides us and prevents intercultural understanding.

In 2009, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, stressed to me how skillful General David Petraeus (who succeeded Fallon as chief of CENTCOM) had been in his use of statistics and propaganda that had “lulled us into taking Iraq off the front page”, distracting public scrutiny while Wilkerson could see that: “Iraq has not changed, majorly, in terms of its political disposition and where it might go into the future”.

Chilling words, given the subsequent rise of Islamic State. The lack of transparency and debate has facilitated the developing crisis and greater understanding of the value of independent academic expertise would, in the long term, produce more robust solutions.

What we need is to see how recent events have been fuelled by our own flawed policies and a media that focuses less on headlines than showing us the truth.

Source: http://theconversation.com/wests-crisis-of-communication-will-make-terrorist-atrocities-more-likely-50813

‘Initial Decision’ Comes in Lab’s Data Security Legal Dispute

Marianne Kolbasuk McGee (HealthInfoSec) • November 17, 2015

A messy legal saga between the Federal Trade Commission and LabMD, related to a data security dispute, appears closer to ending with a significant win for the medical testing lab. An FTC administrative law judge has ruled to dismiss the FTC’s case against LabMD that alleged the Atlanta-based company had failed to protect the security of consumers’ personal data, putting them at risk for identity theft.

In a Nov. 13 “initial decision,” FTC administrative law judge Michael Chappell dismissed the FTC’s case against LabMD, saying the FTC “failed to prove its case” that two data security-related incidents at LabMD in 2008 and 2012 caused, or were likely to cause, “substantial injury to consumers,” such as identity theft, medical identity theft, reputational harm or privacy harm, and would, therefore, constitute unfair trade practices.

What’s Next?

The FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, which brought the legal action against LabMD, can appeal within 30 days of Chappell’s initial ruling to dismiss the case, says an FTC source who asked not to be named. If that happens, the full four-member commission would then decide on whether to affirm Chappell’s ruling to dismiss the FTC’s case against LabMD.

In a statement, Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s bureau of consumer protection, says: “Commission staff is disappointed in the ruling issued by the administrative law judge in this case. We are considering what next steps may be appropriate.”

Should the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection appeal Judge Chappell’s ruling and the commission subsequently reject Chappell’s decision, then the FTC case against LabMD could move to federal court, explains the FTC source.

Case Details

The FTC complaint against LabMD filed in August 2013 alleges that a LabMD spreadsheet containing insurance billing information was found on a peer-to-peer network in 2008. The spreadsheet allegedly contained sensitive personal information for more than 9,000 consumers, putting individuals at risk for identity theft and medical identity theft, the FTC contends. LabMD’s allegedly unsecured spreadsheet was discovered by peer-to-peer security firm Tiversa, which reported the matter to the FTC.

During testimony at the administrative hearing, however, LabMD CEO Michael Daugherty alleged that Tiversa reported false information to the FTC about the supposed security incident involving LabMD’s data after LabMD refused to buy Tiversa’s remedial services. A former Tiversa employee also testified that it was a “common practice” of Tiversa’s to approach prospective clients with exaggerated information about their allegedly unsecured files that the security firm found “spreading” on the Internet in an attempt to sell the company’s security monitoring and remedial services (see Bombshell Testimony in FTC’s LabMD Case).

In addition to the FTC’s case against LabMD, the dispute has also resulted in a number of other related lawsuits over the past few years, including ongoing litigation between LabMD and Tiversa, as well as a number of other legal actions by LabMD against the FTC.

In 2014, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also conducted an investigation into the business practices of Tiversa (see LabMD Case: House Committee Gets Involved). A resulting “staff report” by the committee alleges that Tiversa “often acted unethically and sometimes unlawfully in its use of documents unintentionally exposed on peer-to-peer networks.”

In a statement, Tiversa says: “we have sadly been dragged into this case as LabMD sought to blame others for its admitted mistakes. We have acted appropriately and legally in every way with respect to LabMD, despite their efforts to besmirch our reputation.”

Additionally, Tiversa says it continues to pursue a defamation case against LabMD in Pennsylvania Court.

The FTC’s complaint against LabMD also alleges that in 2012, police in Sacramento, Calif. found LabMD documents in the possession of identity thieves. “The documents contained personal information, including names, Social Security numbers, and in some instances, bank account information, of at least 500 consumers,” the FTC argues.

Consent Order Proposed

Citing the two alleged security incidents, the FTC in August 2013 proposed a “consent order” against LabMD that would prevent future violations by requiring the company to implement a comprehensive information security program that an independent, certified security professional would evaluate every two years over the next 20 years. The order also would require that LabMD provide notice to consumers whose information LabMD has reason to believe was or could have been accessible to unauthorized persons and to consumers’ health insurance companies.

LabMD fought the FTC’s proposed enforcement action, arguing the FTC had overstepped its authority related to the medical lab’s data security.

In his Nov. 13 initial decision to dismiss the FTC’s case against LabMD, Chappell wrote the FTC “has failed to carry its burden of proving its theory that [LabMD’s] alleged failure to employ reasonable data security constitutes an unfair trade practice because [the FTC] has failed to prove the first prong of the three-part test – that this alleged unreasonable conduct caused or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers.”

LabMD CEO Reaction ‘Bittersweet’

LabMD’s CEO Michael Daugherty, who previously said that resources the company has dedicated in its legal battle with FTC has forced the cancer test laboratory to wind down most of its business operations, says he is pleased with the ruling, but has mixed feelings.

“It’s a bittersweet but big victory for the legacy of LabMD, as the Administrative Law Judge smacked the FTC down but good, dismissing the FTC’s bully case for the smoke and mirrors revenge mission that it was,” he tells Information Security Media Group. “Relying on unreliable witnesses, not verifying evidence and punishing LabMD into insolvency, this win won’t bring back LabMD or wash the blood off the government’s hands, but hopefully will raise awareness of the true tactics of the FTC and all who enable their behavior.”

Attorney Daniel Epstein, executive director of non-profit advocacy, Cause of Action Institute, which represented LabMD in its dispute with the FTC, noted that LabMD was the first company to refuse a ‘consent order’ and fight back against FTC. “After hearing the evidence and reviewing the legal arguments, Chief Judge Chappell decisively rejected FTC’s claims, issuing a decision that will protect small businesses from future government abuses,” Epstein said in a statement.

Embolden Others?

Ultimately, questions about the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the allegedly unsecured LabMD spreadsheet were what sunk the FTC’s case against LabMD, privacy attorney David Holtzman of security consulting firm CynergisTek tells ISMG.

“At the end of the day, the complaint against LabMD was decided less on issues [about] what is good data security than on the actions and credibility of the government’s ‘snitch,'” Holtzman says.

“The decision by the [administrative law judge] turned on the weight given the credibility and reliability of the evidence that the electronic file created by LabMD entered wide distribution on the Internet due to the alleged failure of LabMD to have reasonable safeguards to protect it from unauthorized disclosure,” he adds. “After reviewing the uncontroverted evidence, the [judge] said he could not find that the FTC had proved that any consumer had been put at risk, which is an element required in finding that a company had engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice.”

The ruling in the LabMD case could embolden other companies to contest FTC enforcement actions related to data security disputes, he says. “Most complaints brought by the FTC alleging that poor data security practices resulted in harm to consumers are settled by companies pledging to implement stronger information security practices,” Holtzman concludes. “The question now is whether more companies will be more willing to push the FTC into litigating these agency enforcement actions.”

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is seen here being towed home by a tug boat after breaking down in a storm. Kuznetsov is an aircraft cruiser (heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser in Russian classification) serving as the flagship of the Russian Navy.

She was originally commissioned in the Soviet Navy, and was intended to be the lead ship of her class, but the only other ship of her class, Varyag, was never completed or commissioned by the Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian navy. Later, this second hull was sold to the People’s Republic of China by Ukraine, completed in Dalian and launched as Liaoning.

Source: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-aircraft-carrier-towed-home-after-break-down/

By Editorial Board November 18 at 6:53 PM

THE PARIS attacks created a tactical opportunity for Vladi­mir Putin. For two months the Russian ruler sought to persuade Arab and Western nations to join what he described as an alliance against the Islamic State, even as aRussian offensive in Syria targeted Western-backed Syrian rebel forces. He was spurned, and his military campaign bogged down. Now, in the wake of Paris, French President François Hollande suddenly has become a convert to the grand-alliance idea; he has scheduled visits to Washington and Moscow next week to promote it.

Mr. Putin is doing his best to look like a potential partner. On Tuesday, after weeks of obfuscation, his government suddenly confirmed that the Islamic State was responsible for the bombing of a Russian airliner last month, and Russian forces carried out a rare wave of attacks against the Islamic State capital, Raqqa. The Kremlin has much to gain: An alliance could mean the end of European sanctions against Russia, which will expire in January unless renewed, and the concession of a Russian say over the future of Syria and perhaps also Ukraine, where Russian-backed forces have resumed daily attacks.

The question for Western governments, including a rightly skeptical Obama administration, is whether joining with Mr. Putin would help or hurt the cause of destroying the Islamic State. For now, that’s not a hard call. Russia has little to offer the U.S.-led coalition in military terms, even if it proved willing to focus its attacks on the Islamic State rather than rebels fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, Mr. Putin’s strategy of bolstering rather than removing the Assad regime is, along with Iran’s similar strategy, the single biggest obstacle to defeating the jihadists.

Russia has sought to demonstrate in Syria that its military forces have been modernized since they struggled to defeat Chechen rebels a decade ago. But military analysts haven’t been impressed with the Russian-led assault on anti-Assad forces in northern Syria. Moscow’s planes have mostly dropped dumb bombs, while Syrian and Iranian troops have lost scores of Russian-supplied tanks and armored vehicles to the rebels’ U.S.-made TOW missiles. Having failed to recapture significant territory, the Russian mission appears doomed to quagmire or even defeat in the absence of a diplomatic bailout.

Mr. Putin duly dispatched his foreign minister to talks in Vienna last weekend on a Syrian political settlement. But Moscow and Tehran continue to push for terms that would leave Mr. Assad in power for 18 months or longer, while — in theory — a new constitution is drafted and elections organized. Even a U.S. proposal that Mr. Assad be excluded from the eventual elections was rejected, according to Iranian officials.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry was rather elegant in explaining the dangers of accepting Russian terms. If the West “cut a deal” such that “Assad can be there for a while longer,” he said, “the war won’t stop.” The Syrian dictator “has become the magnet for the foreign fighters” joining the Islamic State, Mr. Kerry said. His atrocities, from chemical weapons to “barrel bombs,” have convinced the vast majority of Syrian Sunnis that he — and not the terrorists — is their principal enemy.

The only productive contribution Mr. Putin could make to an anti-Islamic State coalition would be to reverse himself, use Russia’s leverage to obtain the removal of Mr. Assad and stop attacks on Western-sponsored forces. Failing that, an alliance with Russia would be a dangerous false step for the United States and France.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-risks-of-alliance-with-russia/2015/11/18/a93134ee-8e19-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html

Obama on ISIS: “We Have Contained Them”

President Obama is being taken to task for this statement, but in yet another “in your face” statement by ISIS, they have released a very high quality, glossy magazine, available online.

Dear Mr. President. Do you have an information strategy?  When are you going to start using it?  No?  Have you maximized the effectiveness of the information tools you already have?

I already know the answer, it is a resounding “no”.

Let it be a part of your legacy, sir, that you recognized the importance of information and are willing to use it to maximize the full forces of the United States of America to eliminate IS as a threat.

You need help.  Call me, I’ll bring some friends, we’ll share some beer(s) and make you a hero.

New issue of IS magazine, Dabiq, in English

It’s a 66 page magazine that details all news of IS activities and includes other stories.

“One can tell that IS is not just a normal terror org.  In addition to finance, they have human capital who are savvy in tech and media.”

• Senior US Government Official

Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7K_7zDZWO-VOGc2SDhtODFFbnM/view?pli=1

What Russia says and what Russia does are two very different things.

This is not new. But Russia is entirely disingenuous when Putin states ‘this is for the refugees‘.  “

According to the Russian Federal Migration Service, there are currently 7,424 Syrians in Russia. Of these, only 333 Syrians have received temporary asylum and only three Syrians have gained official refugee status in Russia.

Kennan Cable No.12: A Long Road to Asylum: SyrianRefugees in Russia

Russia is not as good as their propaganda makes them out to be.

The Russian media quotes a source in the military as saying that the flight of the first of the two Bulava missiles launched from Vladimir Monomakh submarine on November 14, 2015 did not hit its targets at the Kura test site. The source said that the warheads did reach “the Kamchatka region”, but not the designated targets. This suggests that the miss was fairly large.

Source: http://russianforces.org/blog/2015/11/one_of_the_bulava_missiles_mis.shtml

The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence invites you to the book launch of Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression against Ukraine, edited by Centre Ambassador Kenneth Geers.

The book features 18 chapters by scholars and practitioners, which address the nature of modern military conflict – especially its cyber component – against the backdrop of the Ukraine crisis (2013-2015). It addresses vital questions such as: What role have computer network operations played in the Ukraine war? To what extent is this case study similar to, or different from, other modern conflicts? Is cyber war now a reality – or is it still closer to science fiction? Do states today limit their use of computer hacking? Can cyber attacks give soldiers more than a tactical edge on the battlefield? What external factors are influencing the use of cyber operations? How does Russia currently use its cyber capabilities, and will that change in the future?

The book launch will be held on Tuesday, December 1^st at the ‘Bordoo’ restaurant in the Three Sisters Hotel (Pikk 71/Tolli 2, Tallinn). Snacks and coffee are served from 9.30 and the 2-hour program begins at 10.00.

A discussion will be led by NATO CCD COE Director Sven Sakkov and feature the Editor Kenneth Geers, as well as three of the book’s authors (Jarno Limnell, Henry Rõigas and Liisa Past).

To register for the event, please send your full name and affiliation toevents@ccdcoe.org no later than 15.00 on November 26.

An online version of the book will be available for free from the Centre’s Cyber Defence Library.

Please feel free to forward this invitation to your colleagues.

The Tallinn-based NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence is a NATO-accredited knowledge hub, think-tank and training facility. The international military organisation focuses on interdisciplinary applied research and development, as well as consultations, trainings and exercises in the field of cyber security. The Centre’s mission is to enhance capability, cooperation and information-sharing between NATO, Allies and partners in cyber defence.

Membership of the Centre is open to all Allies. The Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the USA have signed on as sponsoring nations. Austria and Finland have joined the Centre as contributing participants. The Centre is funded and staffed by these member nations.

For additional information regarding the project, please contact:

Henry Rõigas

Project Manager

henry.roigas@ccdcoe.org

NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence | Tallinn, Estonia

www.ccdcoe.org

This should be fun.

Sit back and watch.

ISIS has offered instructions on how to safeguard members against attacks

ISIS, the militant group that has taken credit for tragic attacks on Paris over the weekend, has opened a new front in a cyber war with Anonymous.

In a posting to Telegram, an encrypted chatting and social service similar to Facebook-owned WhatsApp, an account allegedly linked to ISIS sent out a public service announcement to all ISIS members warning them of a threat from Anonymous. The message, which was posted in English, criticizes Anonymous for even trying to target the militant group.

“The #Anonymous hackers threatened in new video release that they will carry out a major hack operation on the Islamic state (idiots),” the message says, according to Business Insider, which obtained a copy of it. “What they gonna hack?”

The message comes after Friday’s tragic attacks on Paris that left at least 129 dead and hundreds more injured. Soon after the attacks, Anonymous, the hacking collective that has targeted everything from governments to illegal pornography sites over the last decade, posted a video saying that itwould launch its biggest cyber attack ever on ISIS in response.

Read more: Anonymous Launches ‘Biggest Operation’ Against ISIS in Response to Paris Attacks

“Expect massive cyber attacks,” a person representing Anonymous said in the video while wearing the organization’s signature Guy Fawkes mask. “War is declared. Get prepared. Anonymous from all over the world will hunt you down. You should know that we will find you and we will not let you go.”

Since then, Anonymous has opened an official #OpParis Twitter accountto share updates on its operation. Earlier on Tuesday, the account claimed to have taken down “more than 5,500 Twitter account [sic] of ISIS.” The account also links to a text file on Pastebin seemingly outlining Anonymous’ plans. The document includes what appears to be a target list for Anonymous members, including ISIS member Twitter accounts, Syrian Internet Service Providers, and ISIS-related e-mail and Web servers.

While #OpParis has yet to respond directly to the ISIS message, the latest battle seems to be brewing over which group is smarter. Earlier today, Anonymous posted a message to Twitter saying that is, in fact, the smarter party.

“ISIS tries to stop us, but we’re smarter,” the #OpParis account reads.

In addition to warning ISIS members of a potential Anonymous threat, the Telegram message includes several instructions for members to follow in order to avoid a potential hack. Members of the militant group have been warned to use virtual private networks, or VPNs, to anonymize themselves on the Web. They were also urged to stay away from Twitter and not talk to anyone they may not know.

ISIS has a history fighting Anonymous. After the attack on Charlie Hebdoin January, Anonymous posted a video, saying that it would attack terrorists in connection with the killings. Soon after, Anonymous successfully took down tens of thousands of Twitter accounts suspected of ISIS connections. Anonymous also took down a dating site for ISIS members.

The latest attack, Anonymous has warned, will yield an even greater response.

“We should expect Anonymous to target ISIS members online and make ISIS member information publicly available,” Ben FitzGerald, cybersecurity expert and technology director for the national security program at the Center for a New American Security, told Fortune. “Anonymous will go after online personas and ISIS websites.”

So far, Anonymous has indeed gone after those accounts, as well as websites and e-mail addresses potentially connected to the militant group. The hacking collective seems to have its sights set firmly on disrupting ISIS.

For now, ISIS seems only ready to say Anonymous is dumb for attacking its members. Anonymous, meanwhile, tweeted yesterday an ominous message for ISIS, as it prepares for an all-out war.

“We’ve set up divisions now,” the Twitter account reads. “This should be much more effective. More to come.”

Source: http://time.com/4117704/isis-anonymous-cyber-war/

Russia is getting stranger and stranger.

Why don’t Russian citizens see how crazy Putin and the Russian government are and react?

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Paul Goble

Staunton, November 18 – A curious and extraordinarily dangerous feedback loop has emerged, Mikhail Solomatin says. Moscow projects false myths on the West and then uses those myths to justify its own actions at home and abroad – or to put it more succinctly, “Russia seeks to introduce those standards of Western civilization which it dreamed up on its own.”

This projection of Russian myths on the West is becoming increasingly a part not only of Russian ideology but also of Russian practice under Putin, the Moscow historian argues in a commentary on Kasparov.ru today and opens the way to ever greater misunderstandings and disasters in the future (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=564C2C3F1994E).

Thus, he says, Moscow puts out the myth that the US sends its troops into any country “which it considers the zone of its interests” and then the Kremlin uses that myth to “justify the seizure of Crimea and the provision of military assistance to Asad.” Its myth that the US organizes “color revolutions” is used to justify Moscow’s sponsorship of separatism in Ukraine.

Its myth that the American film, “The Tail Wags the Dog,” “reflects the principles of the foreign and domestic policy of the West led to the creation of Kiselyev-TV,” Solomatin observes. And even Putin’s blatant lying about Russian forces in Crimea reflects “a myth abou the total falseness and cynicism of politicians in Western countries.”

But there is another and even more deeply “rooted’ for Russian consciousness myth” about the West, the myth “that behind the Islamist terrorists stand the CIA. This myth is old, much older for example that the one that holds that the Maidan was ‘sponsored by the State Department.’”

Given those Kremlin assumptions, Solomatin says, “it is hardly wise to ignore” the fact that “the Kremlin cannot but be thinking” about how it can use weapons it says the CIA has created for Russia’s purposes. Indeed, it would be very surprising if Putin and his entourage were not doing that.

To say that, he points out, is not to say that Moscow organized this or that terrorist action but only that its myths about the supposed Western organizers of terrorist groups is part of Kremlin thinking and helps to explain why Moscow so often succeeds in exploiting terrorist acts for its own purposes. After all, it assumes that the West is trying to do the same thing.

“The only structure which won from the destruction of the jet over Sinai and from the bloodbath in Paris and the only structure whose earlier declared goals were advanced as a result of these terrorist actions was the Putin regime,” the Moscow commentator argues.

As a result of Paris, he continues, Putin received carte blanche to isolate his own citizens from the rest of the world and a wonderful opportunity to “force the West to cooperate and forget about Ukraine.”  In fact, “not for any other government of any other country of the world did the actions of the terrorists open such perspectives.”

That is what Putin was promoting at the G20 summit, and, one could add on the basis of the latest news, has succeeded in some measure given US President Barack Obama’s declaration today at the Asian-Pacific Summit that he views Putin as a reliable partner in the struggle against terrorism.

Exactly the same thing happened after the 9/11 attacks, Solomatin says. “On the basis of ‘common challenges,” the West “forgave Russia” for its Chechen campaigns, and “Putin became the best friend of Bush Junior.”

“I am far from convinced in the justice of the thesis that ‘The FSB Blew Up Russia,’ [a reference to the book linking Putin to the apartment bombings in 1999], but three things are completely obvious,” Solomatin says:

1. “The Kremlin believes in the effectiveness of suing Islamist terrorist in the geopolitical struggle because Russian ideologues have already for a long time accused the hated US of this.”

2. “The Kremlin believes that cynicism is the basic contemporary policy.”

3. “The Kremlin consistently is the main and at times the only beneficiary from the activities of Islamist terrorists, something which is not surprising given that among their enemies is not a little in common and the chief among them is contemporary Western civilization with its liberalism and human rights.”

This is not something new for Moscow, he continues. It helps to explain what made possible “the alliance of Stalin with Hitler in 1939.”

Stolomatin says he is far from “accusing Russia in the organization of terrorist actions, but it is undoubtedly the case that Russia for a long time has become at a minimum, the ideological and political backer of terrorism,” as in the case of the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine. Moscow may not have pulled the trigger but it supplied the weapons to those who did.

That case “illustrates the connection of Russia with international terrorism, one that is not direct but neither is it accidental or illogical,” Stolomatin continues. “Russia’s Anti-Westernism and intensified anti-Americanism,” its belief that world leadership rests on displays of military might and repression “have made it “close to those who seek to blow up the world order.”

And this, the Moscow historian says, is “only beginning.”

Moscow says it spends less than it does so that NATO will cut back too.

By PAUL R. GREGORY 11/17/15, 6:19 PM CET Updated 11/18/15, 10:55 PM CET

Reports that Russia is limiting military spending to a 1 percent (nominal) increase in 2016 may be timed to deflate NATO’s initiative to raise defense spending to the target 2 percent for each member country. Russia is playing a dual role. On the one hand, it exults in its military power on prominent display in Syria. On the other, it plays the role of impoverished cousin — too poor to keep up military spending. Russia cannot have it both ways.

As reported by Russian official news sources and other media (Moscow Times, Defense News), the Russian Federation’s 2016 draft budget calls for a miniscule (less than 1 percent) increase in defense spending. According to the draft budget, 2016 spending on national defense and national security will be around $50 billion (at current depressed exchange rates), or some 4 percent of GDP and only eight-tenths of 1 percent higher than 2015. With a projected 7 percent inflation rate, these figures call for a substantial decline in real military spending.
These static figures seem counterintuitive in the face of Russia’s military engagement in Syria and east Ukraine and its military exercises on its western borders and the Arctic. According to the official numbers, Russia is either a paper tiger or getting huge efficiencies from its military spending.

Closer examination shows that Russia is reprising Soviet times, when official USSR defense budget figures had little meaning and actual defense outlays had to be calculated independently and with large margins of error.

A mainstream Russia newspaper, Vedemosti, in its story Russia Hides its Budget, reports that a quarter of federal spending is now classified as secret. Disclosure of information on defense spending has become a criminal act under the state secrets law. What is secret and what is not appears to be quite arbitrary. What we do know is that the scrawny defense expenditure figures cited above capture only the non-classified portion of defense outlays. The “secret” part of the defense budget is rising as a share of the total, which means that the official figures understate the rise and share of military spending.

Two independent Russian sources offer estimates of Russian defense spending that purport to adjust for secret spending. The Institute for the Reformation of Societal Finances incorporates the value of the 2016-2020 $400 billion State Program for the Development of the Defense-Industrial Complex as part of the secret share of the budget. According to the institute’s calculations, the 2016 share of defense outlays will be one-third of the 2016 federal budget and slightly above 6 percent of GDP versus the official figures of 20 percent and 4 percent of GDP.

The Center of Development of the Higher School of Economics gets the same results (one-third of federal spending and 6 percent of GDP) using a different methodology. The Center for Development calculates the national defense and national security share of the budget by filling in the “secret” holes. This is no easy task because the budget is divided into almost 10,000 budget positions.

The Center finds that 60 percent of defense spending is for national defense and the rest is for national security. A peculiar feature of Russian security spending is the federalization of security such as a large ministry of interior and FSB (federal security service) troop force, and a multitude of federal law enforcement agencies. If we drop the federal prison system and fire protection services (on the grounds that they do not belong in national security), the defense share of the federal budget falls to 31.5 percent, which is still above 6 percent of GDP.

***

The possible privatization of defense spending introduces yet another complication to estimating defense outlays. A prominent Russian oligarch is rumored to have been the bankroller of the separatist insurgency in east Ukraine. Putin is known to have taxed various oligarchs to pay for the Sochi Olympics. If Olympics, why not military spending?

Russian GDP measures approximately $2 trillion (in purchasing power parity) of which they spend (according to the figures in this piece) 6 percent or $120 billion on defense. The GDP of NATO’s continental European members adds up to some $18 trillion, of which they collectively spend slightly over 1.2 percent for a total of $230 billion on defense. If the continental NATO countries raised their military spending to the 2 percent target, they would add another $200 billion to defense spending without even counting the United States and the U.K. At the 2 percent target, NATO would spend some $430 billion on defense versus Russia’s $120 billion.

As during the Cold War, the USSR strained to compete militarily with the West because of its relatively small GDP. Now we have Putin’s Russia engaged in a struggle with the West, operating with a similar small GDP problem. The prospect of NATO meeting its 2 percent target places Russia at a similar disadvantage as the USSR encountered trying to compete with Reagan’s Star Wars program.

The Russian announcement of a modest defense budget may be Russia’s way of signaling to NATO that the sacrifice of extra defense spending during a time of economic woe is not necessary. Why should they ramp up defense spending when their foe is cutting back? I suspect this is the Kremlin’s line.

Paul R. Gregory is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He holds an endowed professorship in the Department of Economics at the University of Houston, Texas, is a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin, and is emeritus chair of the International Advisory Board of the Kiev School of Economics.

The Kingdom of Belgium has decided to join the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence as a Sponsoring Nation. A delegation from Belgium visited the Centre this week to start the accession negotiations.

“Belgium is a key contributor to European cyber security. In addition to hosting several international institutions, they are fundamental to several cyber defence cooperation efforts in NATO and the European Union,” noted Mr. Sven Sakkov, Director of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. He highlighted the importance of Belgium becoming a full-fledged member of the Centre at the times crucial to European security as well as when cyber challenges are clearly on the rise. „We warmly welcome Belgium’s decision and hope for an expeditious accession process,“ added Mr. Sakkov.

“Belgian Defence is honoured being accepted as a member of the CCDCOE. Cyber Defence is a top priority of the Belgian Government,“ said Colonel Gunther De Kerpel supported by Major Jeff Vandromme from the Strategic Affairs Department of the Belgian Defence Staff. „Belgian Defence will very soon add deeds to words by sending a proficient cyber defence specialist to Tallinn”.

The Tallinn-based NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence is a NATO-accredited knowledge hub focused on interdisciplinary applied research and development as well as consultations, trainings and exercises in the field of cyber security. The Centre’s mission is to enhance capability, cooperation and information-sharing between NATO, Allies and Partners in cyber defence. The Centre is staffed and financed by sponsoring nations and contributing participants.

Membership of the Centre is open to all Allies. Currently, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States have signed on as Sponsoring Nations. Austria and Finland have joined the Centre as Contributing Participants, the status for non-NATO members of the NATO CCDCOE.

Additional information:

Mr Siim Alatalu

International Relations Advisor

NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence | Tallinn, Estonia

media@ccdcoe.org

www.ccdcoe.org