Why Did DHS Honor Antonia Hernandez?

DHS Agency That Enforces Immigration Law Honors Open Borders Activist Who Helps Illegal Aliens

The Homeland Security agency responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is honoring a renowned open-borders activist dedicated to defending illegal aliens in the U.S. with a prestigious award. Known as “Outstanding American by Choice,”it’s bestowed annually by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to recognize the “significant contributions and achievements of a naturalized” American citizen. This year’s winner is being crowned today at a ceremony in Los Angeles, California where she runs a billion-dollar charity largely dedicated to assisting immigrants.

Her name is Antonia Hernández, a civil rights attorney who spent two decades litigating on behalf of illegal immigrants at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the powerful open borders group that specializes in discrimination lawsuits on behalf of illegal aliens. Promoted as a “Latino advocacy” group, MALDEF also pushes for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new migrants. The group’s leadership says it’s racist to make English the country’s official national language and inhumane to protect the southern border with a fence. Hernández was president and general counsel at MALDEF before becoming president and CEO at a like-minded nonprofit with deep pockets called the California Community Foundation. The charity ranks among the nation’s top100 foundations by size and giving with an endowment exceeding $1 billion. Among its focuses is “immigrant integration.”

Hernández is the oldest of seven children born to poor Mexican immigrants, according to a magazine profile that says before she could drive Hernández walked the picket lines in support of California’s farm workers. During twenty years at MALDEF Hernández successfully defeated a California measure—passed by voters—that would have denied health and education benefits to illegal immigrants, worked to create voting districts that equitably represented Latinos and litigated on behalf of limited-English proficient students in the nation’s public school system. A California congresswoman who honored Hernández with a public service award years ago described her as a “tenacious defender of immigration reform”and a “devoted advocate on behalf of fair and just immigration reform.”

Under Hernández’s leadership the California Community Foundation has dedicated large amounts of resources to assist illegal immigrants, especially in the last two years. In 2014, Hernández led an effort to form an emergency relief fund to help the influx of illegal alien minors—mostly from Central America— that the Obama administration allowed to enter the U.S. through Mexico. The government calls them Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and many have ties to gang members in the U.S., specifically MS-13. In fact, earlier this year Judicial Watch reported that the execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as UACs under the president’s open border free-for-all. Many of the UACs have also brought in dangerous diseases, including swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis. Nevertheless, Hernández said this about the UACs when her nonprofit scrambled to help them: “They are our children.”

The award that Hernández is accepting today is supposed to go to a candidate that demonstrates “their commitment to this country and to the common civic values that unite us all as Americans,” according to a USCIS announcement. The agency purports to consider candidates’ civic participation, professional achievement and responsible citizenship. The government’s goal is to recognize individuals who chose to become Americans and have made significant contributions to both their community and the United States. Deputy Security of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, shamefully ousted as a Clinton federal prosecutor after orchestrating the pardon of a big-time drug dealer, will give Hernández the award at today’s ceremony. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement of the event describes Hernández as a civil rights attorney who has demonstrated her commitment of social justice and civic engagement for over four decades.

IN 2015:  

Readout of Deputy Secretary Mayorkas’ Trip to California and Arizona

Release Date:
February 3, 2015

For Immediate Release
DHS Press Office
Contact: 202-282-8010

PHOENIX – Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas today concluded a trip to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix for a series of workforce engagements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) personnel. Deputy Secretary Mayorkas also met with local elected officials and law enforcement to discuss the ongoing collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security to safeguard local communities.

While in Los Angeles, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas participated in a panel discussion with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the Mayor’s Chief of Immigrant Affairs Linda Lopez and California Community Foundation President and Chief Executive Officer Antonia Hernandez. During the panel, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas discussed the Department’s implementation efforts related to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the economic benefits of the recent administrative actions on immigration for the City of Los Angeles. Deputy Secretary Mayorkas reiterated the need for Congress to pass an appropriations bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security as soon as possible.

While in Los Angeles, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas also met with Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck and Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, emphasizing the importance of enhanced communication and information sharing between the Department and state and local law enforcement.

Deputy Secretary Mayorkas then traveled to San Francisco, where he met with San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, Police Chief Gregory Suhr, and other local officials to discuss the Department’s commitment to working with local communities to ensure that we effectively and sensibly enforce our Nation’s immigration laws.

In Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles, Deputy Secretary Mayorkas participated in DHS employee town hall discussions with ICE and USCIS personnel, to thank them for their service and for responsibly implementing the Department’s policies and enforcement priorities.

ICANN Soon to be ICANT? Obama Gives Away Internet Control

   

ICANN, the International Community, and Internet Governance

Because cyberspace and the Internet transcend national boundaries, and because the successful

functioning of the DNS relies on participating entities worldwide, ICANN is by definition an

international organization. Both the ICANN Board of Directors and the various constituency

groups who influence and shape ICANN policy decisions are composed of members from all over

the world. Additionally, ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which is

composed of government representatives of nations worldwide, provides advice to the ICANN

Board on public policy matters and issues of government concern. Although the ICANN Board is

required to consider GAC advice and recommendations, it is not obligated to follow those

recommendations.

Many in the international community, including foreign governments, have argued that it is

inappropriate for the U.S. government to maintain its legacy authority over ICANN and the DNS,

and have suggested that management of the DNS should be accountable to a higher

intergovernmental body. The United Nations, at the December 2003 World Summit on the

Information Society (WSIS), debated and agreed to study the issue of how to achieve greater

international involvement in the governance of the Internet and the domain name system in

particular. The study was conducted by the U.N.’s Working Group on Internet Governance

(WGIG). On July 14, 2005, the WGIG released its report, stating that no single government

should have a preeminent role in relation to international Internet governance. The report called

for further internationalization of Internet governance, and proposed the creation of a new global

forum for Internet stakeholders. Four possible models were put forth, including two involving the

creation of new Internet governance bodies linked to the U.N. Under three of the four models,

ICANN would either be supplanted or made accountable to a higher intergovernmental body. The

report’s conclusions were scheduled to be considered during the second phase of the WSIS held

in Tunis in November 2005. U.S. officials stated their opposition to transferring control and

administration of the domain name system from ICANN to any international body. Similarly, the

109th Congress expressed its support for maintaining U.S. control over ICANN (H.Con.Res. 268

and S.Res. 323).39

The European Union (EU) initially supported the U.S. position. However, during September 2005

preparatory meetings, the EU seemingly shifted its support towards an approach which favored an

enhanced international role in governing the Internet. Read more here from FAS.

President Barack Obama’s drive to hand off control of Internet domains to a foreign multi-national operation will give some very unpleasant regimes equal say over the future of online speech and commerce.

Breitbart: In fact, they are likely to have much more influence than America, because they will collectively push hard for a more tightly controlled Internet, and they are known for aggressively using political and economic pressure to get what they want.

Here’s a look at some of the regimes that will begin shaping the future of the Internet in just a few days, if President Obama gets his way.

China

China wrote the book on authoritarian control of online speech. The legendary “Great Firewall of China” prevents citizens of the communist state from accessing global content the Politburo disapproves of. Chinese technology companies are required by law to provide the regime with backdoor access to just about everything.

The Chinese government outright banned online news reporting in July, granting the government even tighter control over the spread of information. Websites are only permitted to post news from official government sources. Chinese online news wasn’t exactly a bastion of freedom before that, of course, but at least the government censors had to track down news stories they disliked and demand the site administrators take them down.

Related reading: Dangerous Transfer: The President’s ICANN Internet Problem

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Communists aren’t big fans of independent news analysis or blogging, either. Bloggers who criticize the government are liable to be charged with “inciting subversion,”even when the writer in question is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Chinese citizens know better than to get cheeky on social media accounts, as well. Before online news websites were totally banned, they were forbidden from reporting news gathered from social media, without government approval. Spreading anything the government decides is “fake news” is a crime.

In a report labeling China one of the worst countries for Internet freedom in the world, Freedom House noted they’ve already been playing games with Internet registration and security verification:

The China Internet Network Information Center was found to be issuing false digital security certificates for a number of websites, including Google, exposing the sites’ users to “man in the middle” attacks.

The government strengthened its real-name registration laws for blogs, instant-messaging services, discussion forums, and comment sections of websites.

A key feature of China’s online censorship is that frightened citizens are not entirely certain what the rules are. Huge ministries work tirelessly to pump out content regulations and punish infractions. Not all of the rules are actually written down. As Foreign Policy explained:

Before posting, a Chinese web user is likely to consider basic questions about how likely a post is to travel, whether it runs counter to government priorities, and whether it calls for action or is likely to engender it. Those answers help determine whether a post can be published without incident — as it is somewhere around 84 percent or 87 percent of the time — or is instead likely to lead to a spectrum of negative consequences varying from censorship, to the deletion of a user’s account, to his or her detention, even arrest and conviction.

This was accompanied by a flowchart demonstrating “what gets you censored on the Chinese Internet.” It is not a simple flowchart.

Beijing is not even slightly self-conscious about its authoritarian control of the Internet. On the contrary, their censorship policies are trumpeted as “Internet sovereignty,” and they aggressively believe the entire world should follow their model, as the Washington Post reported in a May 2016 article entitled “China’s Scary Lesson to the World: Censoring the Internet Works.”

China already has a quarter of the planet’s Internet users locked up behind the Great Firewall. How can anyone doubt they won’t use the opportunity Obama is giving them, to pursue their openly stated desire to lock down the rest of the world?

Russia

Russia and China are already working together for a more heavily-censored Internet. Foreign Policy reported one of Russia’s main goals at an April forum was to “harness Chinese expertise in Internet management to gain further control over Russia’s internet, including foreign sites accessible there.”

Russia’s “top cop,” Alexander Bastrykin, explicitly stated Russia needs to stop “playing false democracy” and abandon “pseudo-liberal values” by following China’s lead on Internet censorship, instead of emulating the U.S. example. Like China’s censors, Russian authoritarians think “Internet freedom” is just coded language for the West imposing “cultural hegemony” on the rest of the world.

Just think what Russia and China will be able to do about troublesome foreign websites, once Obama surrenders American control of Internet domains!

Russian President Vladimir Putin has “chipped away at Internet freedom in Russia since he returned to the Kremlin in 2012,” as International Business Times put it in a 2014 article.

One of Putin’s new laws requires bloggers with over 3,000 readers to register with the government, providing their names and home addresses. As with China, Russia punishes online writers for “spreading false information,” and once the charge is leveled, it’s basically guilty-until-proven-innocent. For example, one of the “crimes” that can get a blogger prosecuted in Russia is alleging the corruption of a public official, without ironclad proof.

Human-rights group Agora estimates that Russian Internet censorship grew by 900% in 2015 alone, including both court orders and edicts from government agencies that don’t require court approval. Censorship was expected to intensify even further throughout 2016. Penalties include prison time, even for the crime of liking or sharing banned content on social media.

Putin, incidentally, has described the entire Internet as a CIA plot designed to subvert regimes like his. There will be quite a few people involved in the new multi-national Internet control agency who think purging the Web of American influence is a top priority.

The Russian government has prevailed upon Internet Service Providers to block opposition websites during times of political unrest, in addition to thousands of bans ostensibly issued for security, crime-fighting, and anti-pornography purposes.

Many governments follow the lead of Russia and China in asserting the right to shut down “extremist” or “subversive” websites. In the United States, we worry about law enforcement abusing its authority while battling outright terrorism online, arguing that privacy and freedom of speech must always be measured against security, no matter how dire the threat. In Russia, a rough majority of the population has no problem with the notion of censoring the Internet in the name of political stability, and will countenance absolutely draconian controls against perceived national security threats. This is a distressingly common view in other nations as well: stability justifies censorship and monitoring, not just physical security.

Turkey

Turkey’s crackdown on the Internet was alarming even before the aborted July coup attempt against authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey has banned social media sites, including temporary bans against even giants like Facebook and YouTube, for political reasons. Turkish dissidents are accustomed to such bans coming down on the eve of elections. The Turkish telecom authority can impose such bans without a court order, or a warning to offending websites.

Turkey is often seen as the world leader in blocking Twitter accounts, in addition to occasionally shutting the social media service down completely, and has over a 100,000 websites blacklisted. Criticizing the government online can result in anything from lost employment to criminal charges. And if you think social-media harassment from loyal supporters of the government in power can get pretty bad in the U.S., Turks sometimes discover that hassles from pro-regime trolls online are followed by visits from the police.

Turkish law infamously makes it a crime to insult the president, a law Erdogan has already attempted to impose beyond Turkey’s borders. One offender found himself hauled into court for creating a viral meme – the sort of thing manufactured by the thousands every hour in America – that noted Erdogan bore a certain resemblance to Gollum from Lord of the Rings. The judge in his case ordered expert testimony on whether Gollum was evil to conclusively determine whether the meme was an illegal insult to the president.

The Turkish example introduces another idea common to far too many of the countries Obama wants to give equal say over the future of the Internet: intimidation is a valid purpose for law enforcement. Many of Turkey’s censorship laws are understood to be mechanisms for intimidating dissidents, raising the cost of free speech enough to make people watch their words very carefully. “Think twice before you Tweet” might be good advice for some users, but regimes like Erdogan’s seek to impose that philosophy on everyone. This runs strongly contrary to the American understanding of the Internet as a powerful instrument that lowers the cost of speech to near-zero, the biggest quantum leap for free expression in human history. Zero-cost speech is seen as a big problem by many of the governments that will now place strong hands upon the global Internet rudder.

Turkey is very worried about “back doors” that allow citizens to circumvent official censorship, a concern they will likely bring to Internet control, along with like-minded authoritarian regimes. These governments will make the case that a free and open Internet is a direct threat to their “sovereign right” to control what their citizens read. As long as any part of the Internet remains completely free, no sector can be completely controlled.

Saudi Arabia

The Saudis aren’t too far behind China in the Internet rankings by Freedom House. Dissident online activity can bring jail sentences, plus the occasional public flogging.

This is particularly lamentable because Saudi Arabia is keenly interested in modernization, and sees the Internet as a valuable economic resource, along with a thriving social media presence. Freedom House notes the Internet “remains the least repressive space for expression in the country,” but “it is by no means free.”

“While the state focuses on combatting violent extremism and disrupting terrorist networks, it has clamped down on nonviolent liberal activists and human rights defenders with the same zeal, branding them a threat to the national order and prosecuting them in special terrorism tribunals,” Freedom House notes.

USA Today noted that as of 2014, Saudi Arabia had about 400,000 websites blocked, “including any that discuss political, social or religious topics incompatible with the Islamic beliefs of the monarchy.”

At one point the blacklist included the Huffington Post, which was banned for having the temerity to run an article suggesting the Saudi system might “implode” because of oil dependency and political repression. The best response to criticism that your government is too repressive is a blacklist!

The Saudis have a penchant for blocking messaging apps and voice-over-IP services, like Skype and Facetime. App blocking got so bad that Saudi users have been known to ask, “What’s the point of having the Internet?”

While some Saudis grumble about censorship, many others are active, enthusiastic participants in enforcement, filing hundreds of requests each day to have websites blocked. Religious figures supply many of these requests, and the government defends much of its censorship as the defense of Islamic values.

As with other censorious regimes, the Saudi monarchy worries about citizens using web services beyond its control to evade censorship, a concern that will surely be expressed loudly once America surrenders its command of Internet domains.

For the record, the Saudis’ rivals in Iran are heavy Internet censors too, with Stratfor listing them as one of the countries seeking Chinese assistance for “solutions on how best to monitor the Iranian population.”

North Korea

You can’t make a list of authoritarian nightmares without including the psychotic regime in Pyongyang, the most secretive government in the world.

North Korea is so repressive the BBC justly puts the word “Internet” in scare quotes, to describe the online environment. It doesn’t really interconnect with anything, except government propaganda and surveillance. Computers in the lone Internet cafe in Pyongyang actually boot up to a customized Linux operating system called “Red Star,” instead of Windows or Mac OS. The calendar software in Red Star measures the date from the birth of Communist founder Kim Il-sung, rather than the birth of Christ.

The “Internet” itself is a closed system called Kwangmyong, and citizens can only access it through a single state-run provider, with the exception of a few dozen privileged families that can punch into the real Internet.

Kwangmyong is often compared to the closed “intranet” system in a corporate office, with perhaps 5,000 websites available at most. Unsurprisingly, the content is mostly State-monitored messaging and State-supplied media. Contributors to these online services have reportedly been sent to re-education camps for typos. The North Koreans are so worried about outside contamination of their closed network that they banned wi-fi hotspots at foreign embassies, having noticed information-starved North Korean citizens clustering within range of those beautiful, uncensored wireless networks.

This doesn’t stop South Koreans from attempting cultural penetration of their squalid neighbor’s dismal little online network. Lately they’ve been doing it by loading banned information onto cheap memory sticks, tying them to balloons, and floating them across the border.

Sure, North Korea is the ultimate totalitarian nightmare, and since they have less than two thousand IP addresses registered in the entire country, the outlaw regime won’t be a big influence on Obama’s multi-national Internet authority, right?

Not so fast. As North Korea expert Scott Thomas Bruce told the BBC, authoritarian governments who are “looking at what is happening in the Middle East” see North Korea as a model to be emulated.

“They’re saying rather than let in Facebook, and rather than let in Twitter, what if the government created a Facebook that we could monitor and control?” Bruce explained.

Also, North Korea has expressed some interest in using the Internet as a tool for economic development, which means there would be more penetration of the actual global network into their society. They’ll be very interested in censoring and controlling that access, and they’ll need a lot more registered domains and IP addresses… the very resource Obama wants America to surrender control over.

Bottom line: contrary to left-wing cant, there is such a thing as American exceptionalism – areas in which the United States is demonstrably superior to every other nation, a leader to which the entire world should look for examples. Sadly, our society is losing its fervor for free expression, and growing more comfortable with suppressing “unacceptable” speech, but we’re still far better than anyone else in this regard.

The rest of the world, taken in total, is very interested in suppressing various forms of expression, for reasons ranging from security to political stability and religion. Those governments will never be comfortable, so long as parts of the Internet remain outside of their control. They have censorship demands they consider very reasonable, and absolutely vital. The website you are reading right now violates every single one of them, on a regular basis.

There may come a day we can safely remand control of Internet domains to an international body, but that day is most certainly not October 1, 2016.

Russia Hacked 4 Voter Registration Systems

Russian Hackers Targeted Nearly Half of States’ Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrated 4

Think hackers will tip the vote? Read this first….

CSMonitorThe US election system is a massively complex tangle of technology. And some of it is insecure.

It’s rife with internet-based entry points, full of outdated infrastructure, cluttered with proprietary software from a random assortment of vendors, and lacks any standardized security safeguards.

In all, it’s a recipe for disaster. But if a malicious hacker really set out to manipulate the election, how would they actually do it and what could they really accomplish?

The most obvious target seems to be internet-enabled voting, currently used in 32 states. But, these systems aren’t what you think of when you hear “internet-enabled.”

They tend to be systems for distributing ballots that voters print out on paper, sign, and then email or fax back to the state authority for counting.

But emailing and faxing ballots introduces some problems. On a technical level, faxes and the emails used in internet voting aren’t encrypted.

That means states are passing ballots around the open internet. If an attacker is able to compromise any point along the way, they might intercept completed ballots.

Related reading: Hackers have attempted more intrusions into voter databases, FBI director says

So, not only does this system do away with any notion of secrecy, it also ignores any modern understanding of cryptographic security.

I’d much rather see online voting systems with built-in encryption. And that’s not a complex undertaking. Many websites currently use HTTPS, an encrypted protocol, to avoid leaking important things such as credit card numbers and passwords. That’s a good place to start for completed ballots.

Hard targets

But launching a full-scale attack on these systems wouldn’t be easy. First, attackers would need to target online voters (a small minority) who are scattered in various jurisdictions.

Then, once the vulnerable voters are identified, attackers would need to wait for the polling place to transmit those votes. While that kind of attack could work on one person, or a single location, it would be difficult to pull off at any meaningful scale.

Alternatively, an adversary could invent an entirely new population of phantom voters, register them to vote remotely, and stuff the ballot box with fake votes. That’s possible, but highly improbable.

So, what about servers

The easiest way to target servers that collect online ballots is with a distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attack that overwhelms a website with traffic. A totally compromised server could enable attackers to alter or destroy votes in a much sneakier way, and an attack like this could potentially avoid detection until after the election.

But this sort of attack would be pretty obvious to system maintainers, and I suspect polling administrators would quickly switch back to relying on the mail. Remember, online systems aren’t intended for use on Election Day, rather they merely collect absentee ballots.

On the bright side, however, this kind of attack appears possible for only five of the internet-enabled voting states. Only Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, North Dakota, and Missouri have a so-called internet portal.

And none of those states are battleground territories. So, regardless of their security posture, attacking these portals isn’t likely to sway the election. If Florida or Pennsylvania had one of these portals, I’d be more worried.

Voting machines

No electronic voting machine is bulletproof when it comes to cybersecurity. But if an adversary needs to physically visit voting machines in order to fiddle with results, then he or she would need a whole lot of bodies in a whole lot of polling places in order to make an impact.

Don’t get me wrong, attackers could rely on wireless networking or sophisticated antennas. But even with ideal placement and transmission power, bad guys would need to be within sight of a polling place to conduct practical attacks on a Wi-Fi-enabled voting machine.

While remote attacks are possible, it’s not like someone could affect voting from another country. They’d more likely need to be parked outside the polling place. So, although Wi-Fi voting machines are a terrible idea, they don’t appear to be an existential threat to democracy at the time being.

Voter information

Rather than attacking ballot-issuing and ballot-counting systems, attackers have more attractive targets. Voter records, for example, are tempting to cybercriminals since they contain enough personally identifiable information (PII) to kick off identity theft and identity fraud attacks at a much larger scale.

Unfortunately, some of these data sets have already been compromised. Almost 200 million voter records were accidentally leaked late in 2015, and the FBI warned in August that some state voter databases have also suffered breaches.

Altering voter registration records is a big deal since such attacks can affect voter turnout. While that’s not what’s being reported today, such an attack could not only nudge election results one way or another, but also raise serious questions about the integrity of the democratic process.

Even though rare, voter fraud has become a hot political issue. Any attack on voter records could trigger complaints about a rigged election and undermine confidence in the entire system.

Perceptions matter

Alarmingly, hacking elections may not involve the actual compromising of ballots or vote counting at all.

Just imagine that someone decided to take down a couple of voter information websites. Would this technically interfere with the election process? Maybe, if some people were trying to find the address for their polling place.

The obvious effect, though, would be to create the impression that the election is under attack, raising concerns about the credibility of the voting process and casting doubt on the results.

Solutions for securing the vote

Technology may be making elections more convenient and efficient, but that same technology can introduce new risks and it needs to be accounted for.

State election boards or commission should test their systems ahead of Election Day in November. They should even try attacking their own systems to discover what’s possible, and what can help defend their systems.

If you are a voter who is concerned about election hacking, local election officials should be able to tell you how they are dealing with potential cyberthreats. And if you really want to help, volunteer at the polls on Election Day.

Interesting Group Behind the Epic Yahoo Hack

Seems Yahoo could by lying about who actually did the hack and this may be due to the merger between Verizon and Yahoo.

 

The Yahoo hackers weren’t state-sponsored, a security firm says

CSO: Common criminals, not state-sponsored hackers, carried out the massive 2014 data breach that exposed information about millions of Yahoo user accounts, a security firm said Wednesday.

Yahoo has blamed state actors for the attack, but it was actually elite hackers-for-hire who did it, according to InfoArmor, which claims to have some of the stolen information.

The independent security firm found the alleged data as part of its investigation into “Group E,” a team of five professional hackers believed to be from Eastern Europe.

InfoArmor’s claims dispute Yahoo’s contention that a “state-sponsored actor” was behind the data breach, in which information from 500 million user accounts was stolen. Some security experts have been skeptical of Yahoo’s claim and wonder why the company isn’t offering more details.

InfoArmor also claimed that Group E was behind high-profile breaches at LinkedIn, Dropbox and Tumblr. To sell that information, the team has used other hackers, such as Tessa88 and peace_of_mind, to offer the stolen goods on the digital black market.

“The group is really unique,” Komarov said. “They’re responsible for the largest hacks in history, in term of users affected.” More details here.

**** Advice****

You don’t care who has looked at your emails? Really? Consider:

Here’s a simple exercise I invite you to do. Open your email and take a look at everything that you keep on it, both sent and received conversations. Scan all of them, every attachment you ever sent or received, every personal and work conversation, every email draft.

The truth is, we aren’t aware that we are living a big part of our lives through our email inbox.

We keep it all there, in only one place: photos, contracts, invoices, tax forms, reset passwords for every other account, sometimes even passwords or credit card PINs.

And our emails are interconnected to all our other digital accounts, from bank accounts to social networks (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc), cloud services (Google Drive, iCloud, Dropbox), online shops (Amazon, for, ex, where you most likely saved your credit card details as well) and so on.

By simply breaching the email, a malicious hacker can easily get access to all those. They know how to do that.  Read More here…you REALLY need to.

From Digital Guardian:

Wrapping your head around the idea of a breach that affects half a billion users is a difficult task, and it’s not one that anyone has had to contemplate until now. Yahoo’s data breach is far and away the largest on record in terms of the number of users involved. The economic effect on the company will take years to calculate, and it may never be fully known, as is often the case with these breaches. Though Yahoo, already on the ropes and in the middle of a sale to Verizon, may see some rather unpleasant effects quite soon.

From the user’s perspective, too, the massive amount of data taken in the compromise – including dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses, and security questions and answers – could have far-reaching effects. The information is an identity thief’s starter kit, even without bank account or payment card data. Yahoo has pointed the finger at a state-sponsored attacker, as is customary in these incidents.

“Based on the ongoing investigation, Yahoo believes that information associated with at least 500 million user accounts was stolen and the investigation has found no evidence that the state-sponsored actor is currently in Yahoo’s network. Yahoo is working closely with law enforcement on this matter,” the company said in a statement on the compromise.

As gory as they are, the public details of the Yahoo compromise aren’t what’s really interesting or important here. The intriguing part in this case is how long it took Yahoo to uncover and disclose the data breach. In its public statements, the company said it discovered the compromise recently, but the data was stolen in 2014. That fact has drawn the attention of Capitol Hill and a group of senators is asking some very uncomfortable questions of Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer.

In their letter, Sens. Ed Markey, Patrick Leahy, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden asked Mayer when and how Yahoo learned of the breach, why the company took so long to uncover it, and whether any government agencies warned Yahoo of an attack by state-sponsored attackers. The lawmakers also said that the data taken from Yahoo could be used easily in other attacks.

“The stolen data included usernames, passwords, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and security questions and answers,” the senators said. “This is highly sensitive, personal information that hackers can use not only to access Yahoo customer accounts, but also potentially to gain access to any other account or service that users access with similar login or personal information, including bank information and social media profiles.” Complete summary here.

Presidential Determination Signed to Accept 85,000 Refugees

No wonder the FBI is on a hiring blitz to attempt to vet what is told to be highly vetted and scrutinized refugee applicants.

****

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release

Presidential Determination — Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT:      Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016

In accordance with section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “Act”) (8 U.S.C. 1157), and after appropriate consultations with the Congress, I hereby make the following determinations and authorize the following actions:

The admission of up to 85,000 refugees to the United States during Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest; provided that this number shall be understood as including persons admitted to the United States during FY 2016 with Federal refugee resettlement assistance under the Amerasian immigrant admissions program, as provided below.

The admissions numbers shall be allocated among refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States in accordance with the following regional allocations; provided that the number of admissions allocated to the East Asia region shall include persons admitted to the United States during FY 2016 with Federal refugee resettlement assistance under section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1988, as contained in section 101(e) of Public Law 100-202 (Amerasian immigrants and their family members):

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,000

East Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,000

Europe and Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000

Latin America/Caribbean. . . . . . . . . . .  3,000

Near East/South Asia. . . . . . . . . . . .  34,000

Unallocated Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . .  6,000

The 6,000 unallocated refugee numbers shall be allocated to regional ceilings, as needed.  Upon providing notification to the Judiciary Committees of the Congress, you are hereby authorized to use unallocated admissions in regions where the need for additional admissions arises.

Additionally, upon notification to the Judiciary Committees of the Congress, you are further authorized to transfer unused admissions allocated to a particular region to one or more other regions, if there is a need for greater admissions for the region or regions to which the admissions are being transferred.

Consistent with section 2(b)(2) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, I hereby determine that assistance to or on behalf of persons applying for admission to the United States as part of the overseas refugee admissions program will contribute to the foreign policy interests of the United States and designate such persons for this purpose. Consistent with section 101(a)(42) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(42)), and after appropriate consultation with the Congress, I also specify that, for FY 2016, the following persons may, if otherwise qualified, be considered refugees for the purpose of admission to the United States within their countries of nationality or habitual residence:

  1. Persons in Cuba
  2. Persons in Eurasia and the Baltics
  3. Persons in Iraq
  4. Persons in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador
  5. In exceptional circumstances, persons identified by a United States Embassy in any location

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register.

 

BARACK OBAMA