DHS Project New Dawn 1,378 Arrests

Posted on May 12, 2017May 12, 2017 by Denise Simon

WASHINGTON (ABC7) — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials are revealing details of a massive anti-gang operation that’s resulted in 1,378 arrests nationwide.

The six week long operation, which began March 26th, targeted violent criminal street gangs in the DC metro area, San Antonio, San Diego, and Newark.

“The primary purpose of the operation was to identify, arrest, and prosecute gang members and associates who threaten our communities,” Thomas Homan, ICE’s Acting Director told reporters.

The operation, called “Project New Dawn” was led by ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations section, known as HCI.

In the DC area alone, agents arrested 52 people, including 29 members of the El Salvador-controlled MS-13 gang.

“Nearly 1100 were arrested on federal or state criminal charges, including murder, assault and other crimes of violence,” says DHS Deputy Executive Associate Director Derek Benner.

Authorities arrested 21 people on murder related charges, and seven for rape and sexual assault charges.

Others face drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling, sex trafficking, and racketeering charges.

Police say more than 1000 of those arrested had gang affiliations: connections to MS-13, and the Crips, Bloods, and the Surenos street gangs.

“Let me be clear that these violent criminal street gangs are the biggest threat facing our communities,” Homan says.

DC-based HSI agents arrested eleven MS-13 gang members in April at a home in Falls Church, police say.

Ten of those actions were ‘administrative arrests’, for immigation violations, the eleventh was a criminal arrest.

Investigators say federal agents and Fairfax County Police were keeping the home under surveillance because of reports about alleged sex trafficking.

“Our goal at the end of the day is to arrest, prosecute, imprison, deport and remove trans-national gang members as well as to supress violence, and prosecute crimial enterprises,” Benner says.

ICE says during the operation, officers seized 238 guns and $492,000 in cash.

But the agency also revealed a troubling trend.

Investigators in the San Diego area found street gangs are bucking the idea of turf or territory, and instead, are acting in concert, with different groups using each other’s expertise to maximize illegal profits.

“One gang, they specialize in narcotics smuggling, one may specialize in weapons trafficking,” Benner explains. “They’re using each other in this particular case, to further their own enterprises.”

Authorities say of those arrested, 933 are U.S. citizens, and 445 are foreign nationals from Central America, South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Caribbean.

ICE’s Acting Director says the notion of sanctuary cities, where local authorities don’t cooperate with, or take part in ICE operations, is making these investigations more difficult.

“One officer can make (an) arrest inside the jail, turn him over to us, we can remove that person from the country,” Homan says. “When they get released without our attention, they’re back on the streets.”

He says after an initial arrest, 30 to 40 percent of gang-related suspects are repeat offenders.

Some of those in custody face federal re-entry charges, for returning to the U.S. after they were kicked out of the country for immigration or criminal violations.

ICE officials say this is not over, that there will be more operations like this in the future.

“We are not done,” Homan says. “We have a laser focus on these groups, and we will continue to actively pursue them, wherever they are in the United States.”

*** In 2016, ICE had a similar success. Image result for homeland security investigations

WASHINGTON — A five-week operation, dubbed Project Shadowfire, netted 1,133 arrests, including more than 900 transnational criminal gang members and others associated with transnational criminal activity, like drug trafficking, human smuggling and sex trafficking, murder and racketeering. The operation was led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and concluded March 21.

“This operation is the latest example of ICE’s ongoing efforts, begun more than a decade ago under Operation Community Shield, to target violent gang members and their associates, to eradicate the violence they inflict upon our communities and to stop the cash flow to transnational organized crime groups operating overseas,” said ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña.

Since the inception of Operation Community Shield in February 2005, HSI special agents, working in conjunction with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, have made more than 40,000 gang-related arrests and seized more than 8,000 firearms.

Project Shadowfire was a surge operation conducted under Operation Community Shield, and led by the HSI National Gang Unit. Between Feb. 15 and March 21, HSI special agents worked with numerous state, local and federal law enforcement partners, including ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), to apprehend individuals from various gangs.

Most of the individuals arrested during Project Shadowfire were U.S. citizens, but 239 foreign nationals from 13 countries in Central America, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean were also arrested. Of the 1,133 arrests, 915 were gang members and associates, 1,001 were charged with criminal offenses and 132 were arrested administratively for immigration violations.

The majority of arrestees were affiliated with gangs like MS-13, Sureños, Norteños, Bloods and several prison-based gangs. Enforcement actions occurred around the country, with the greatest activity taking place in the Los Angeles, San Juan, Atlanta, San Francisco, Houston, and El Paso areas.

The National Gang Unit oversees HSI’s expansive transnational gang portfolio and enables special agents to bring the fight to these criminal enterprises through the development of uniform enforcement and intelligence-sharing strategies.

Recent National Gang Unit-led operations include: Southern Tempest in 2011, targeting gangs affiliated with drug trafficking; Project Nefarious in 2012, targeting gangs involved in human smuggling and trafficking; Project Southbound in 2014, targeting the Sureños, the fasting growing transnational gang in the U.S., and Project Wildfire in 2015, the largest gang surge conducted by HSI to date.

Additionally, for the past three years, ICE has held an anti-gang conference with the U.S. Department of State in Mexico City to provide training and capacity building for international law enforcement officers to combat and prevent gang activities.

Russian “information operations troops” (“cyber troops”)

Posted on May 11, 2017May 11, 2017 by Denise Simon

Russian ‘Cyber Troops’: A Weapon of Aggression

Eurasia Daily Monitor: Speaking to the Russian parliament (Duma) last February, Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu announced the creation of “information operations troops” (“cyber troops”) within the Armed Forces. He emphasized that state “propaganda should be smart, accurate and effective” and that that these new formations “will be much more efficient than the ‘counter-propaganda’ department that operated during the Soviet period” (TASS, February 22). It is dubious, however, that the responsibilities of “cyber troops” will be reduced solely to “propaganda.” Rather, it seems that this unit is to become the main tool of Russia’s offensive cyber operations as a part of “information warfare.” The official history of the Russian cyber troops goes back to 2012, when Dmitry Rogozin (at the time heading the Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects in the Defense Industry) addressed the issue publicly for the first time. In 2013, an anonymous source confided that formations of this kind had been established under the umbrella of the Russian Armed Forces (RBC, February 22), but at the time there was no solid evidence available.

Then, in April 2015, the official state news agency TASS reported that a unit of Russian “information operations forces” were deployed to the territory of the Crimean Peninsula (TASS, April 17, 2015). Nonetheless, in the meantime, the Russian side continued to deny the existence of cyber troops. For instance, in January 2017, the first deputy director of the Russian Duma Defense Committee, Alexander Sherin, claimed that “Russia does not have such formations.” Similar statements were made by top-ranking Russian officials related to security and mass communications, such as Viktor Ozerov and Alexey Volin (Interfax, January 16). This silence was interrupted only by Defense Minister Shoigu’s official announcement in February. Commenting on the main tasks of the cyber troops, Franz Klintsevych, a high-ranking member of the Russian Federation Council (upper house of parliament), identified the disclosure of subversive activities by foreign intelligence services in electronic, paper and TV media outlets. He suggested that the cyber troops would deal with such hacker attacks as their main responsibility. But this assessment fails to fully reflect the true essence and tasks of the new unit. According to Yaakov Kedmi—who used to head Nativ, the former Israeli intelligence service charged with facilitating the immigration of Jews from the Soviet Bloc—“cyber troops” exist in “all serious armies” and are subordinated to their respective defense ministries. Their main tasks are “propagandist” (propaganda and counter-propaganda) and “operational” (activities designed to distract the adversary by providing false information). Yet, he also highlighted that so-called “political propaganda” falls outside the range of responsibilities for such formations (Kommersant, February 22).

Another revealing bit of information on the secretive cyber troops can be found in research conducted by Zecurion Analytics, a Russian software company established in 2001. According to a report the firm published several months ago, Russia may be placed in the top five countries with the “most powerful” cyber troop units, in terms of the number of personnel employed (which Zecurion Analytics estimates at approximately 1,000) and financial expenditures (around $300 million per annum). The company’s head, Vladimir Ylianov, has stated that the main tasks of Russian “cyber troops” include espionage, cyber attacks, and informational warfare (Kommersant, January 1). This assessment, however, also may underestimate the real capabilities of these cyber forces. Thanks to introduction of so-called “research units,” Russian cyber defense is inseparable from the Armed Forces and its resources, which exponentially increases its offensive potential (see EDM, November 30, 2016).

A somewhat different opinion was expressed by pro-Kremlin cyber security specialist Igor Panarin. He hopes that the creation of the cyber troops will allow Russia to overcome its inferiority in the cyber domain compared to other countries, like the United States, and beef up its offensive capabilities. According to the expert, the 2008 Russian-Georgian War in fact demonstrated that Russian failed to act efficiently when it came to offense, and it instead relied on “defense and containment” in its cyber operations. Panarin suggested that unlike the Department of Information and Mass Communication, which was created under the umbrella of the Ministry of Defense in 2016 and tasked with defensive activities, the cyber troops—which could and should act in concert with the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR)—will be specifically charged with conducting offensive operations in the “cyber sphere” (kiber prostranstvo) (Militarynews.ru, February 22). If accurate, this demonstrates Russia’s continuing development of offensive cyber capabilities and a delineation between “cyber” and “information” operations.

Panarin also outlined a number of supplementary steps Russia needs to take, which included the following elements (Vz.ru, February 28, 2017):

1. The establishment of a State Council (that is to include various governmental structures, public diplomacy organizations, media sources, representatives of business, political parties and non-governmental organizations) tasked with issues related to “information confrontation” (informatsionnoye protivoborstvo—understood as a struggle in the information sphere with the broad aim of achieving information dominance over one’s opponent);

2. The establishment of a position of a “Presidential Advisor” on information operations, tasked with the coordination of informational-analytical units connected with the “cyber troops,” the Ministry of Defense, FSB, Federal Protective Service (FSO), SVR and other key ministries;

3. The creation of a media holding—based on existing media resources of Russian TV Channel One, All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK), RT and others—subordinated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. It is imperative to copy the US experience while implementing this initiative, Panarin alleged; and finally

4. The formation of separate centers of information operations pertaining to the FSB, FSO and SVR. Panarin’s suggested program should be seen as an extremely ambitious and far-reaching strategy, fully complying with the steps and activities already conducted by the Russian side in the domain of cyber security and information operations. Within this development of the country’s cyber capabilities, the Russian cyber troops should be seen mainly as an offensive operations force, and not as a defensive mechanism.

–Sergey Sukhankin

For reference, here is the testimony before

THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE DISINFORMATION A PRIMER IN RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES AND INFLUENCE CAMPAIGNS

Trump’s EO on Voter Fraud Commission

Posted on May 11, 2017May 11, 2017 by Denise Simon

Read the text here. The ‘voting rights’ division at the Justice Department may just have an issue with this, but the commission should happen along with a technology fix going into the future. We cannot forget that DHS contacted several states prior to the voting season last Fall concerning registration databases and voting machines. Some states cooperated while others frankly did not only not trust government intrusion but DHS.

Image result for voter fraud

Trump signs executive order launching voter fraud commission

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to launch a commission to review alleged voter fraud, a White House official confirmed to Fox News, after months of claiming voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.

The order, titled “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity,” would establish a bipartisan commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, to review alleged voter fraud and suppression. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has investigated voter fraud in Kansas, will serve as vice chair.

“The commission will also include individuals with knowledge and experience in election management and voter integrity,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders said on Thursday at the White House daily press briefing. “The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine confidence in elections and identify system vulnerabilities.”

Huckabee-Sanders announced five members to the commission on Thursday: Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson (R), New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D), Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D), Christie McCormick, commissioner of the election assistance commission, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell(R).

The White House said the commission will review practices that affect the integrity of federal elections–spanning improper registrations, improper voting, fraudulent registrations, fraudulent voting and voting suppression.

“We expect the report to be complete by 2018,” Huckabee-Sanders said. “The experts will follow the facts where they lead–we’ll share updates as we have them.”

Trump originally vowed to create such a commission in January. Days after his inauguration, Trump took to Twitter calling for a “major investigation into VOTER FRAUD,” saying that depending on the results of the investigation, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” He cited “illegal” voters and “those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time)” which he claimed cost him the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes.

But on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., slammed the commission.

“Putting an extremist like Mr. Kobach at the helm of this commission is akin to putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department,” Schumer said. “President Trump has decided to waste taxpayer dollars chasing a unicorn and perpetuating the dangerous myth that widespread voter fraud exists.”

Voting experts and many lawmakers have said they haven’t seen anything to suggest that millions of people voted illegally, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz. The Utah Republican said his committee won’t be investigating voter fraud.

In a lunch meeting with senators in February, Trump said that he and former Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte would have won in New Hampshire if not for voters bused in from out of state. New Hampshire officials have said there was no evidence of major voter fraud in the state.

In a February interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump said the main issue of voter fraud was registration, and vowed to look at the situation “very, very carefully.”

“When you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states, that have voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens and they are on registration roles,” Trump said. “We can be babies, but you take a look at registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this, it’s a really bad situation, it’s really bad.”

The decision to revisit the voter fraud issue comes during a tumultuous week, after Trump on Tuesday fired FBI Director James Comey. The administration cited Comey’s handling of the Clinton email probe, but Democrats also question what role his bureau investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 race played.

In a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian election tampering in March, voter fraud became a topic of questioning — Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked Comey if the FBI had any evidence that votes were changed in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio, to which Comey answered “No.”

After winning the election, Trump singled out several states and claimed fraud in their voting system, but officials in those states insisted that his claims were unfounded.

No Cyber Policy, Doctrine, Protection, Result of Senate Hearing

Posted on May 11, 2017May 11, 2017 by Denise Simon

President Trump signed another executive order today. This one is on cyber security and protecting infrastructure. Read it here.

Image result for trump signs executive order BusinessInsider

No one wants to participate in the hard debate regarding cyber, where it is noted to be the highest threat for the homeland. At least the Trump White House is taking note, yet this executive order may not be enough or engage the private sector. It is gratifying however that some inside and outside experts are in fact having talks on an international basis with cyber experts. That is always a good thing.

At issue on this topic is the path forward and the estimated costs. Cyber is a battlespace where it should be noted it could cost what conventional military operations costs against adversaries and could take as long if not forever. All government infrastructure is dated, unprotected and there are no measures to correct in a priority ranking.

The other item of note, there is no legal or case law condition where the cyber attackers are prosecuted. Exactly why did Sony not sue North Korea? If there is no consequence, even ceremoniously, then expect more hacks. Of note, to sue and or sanction North Korea, China would have to be included, as the internet connectivity to North Korea is provided by China and further, China trained the hackers in North Korea….sheesh right?

Politico reports: The directive is Trump’s first major action on cyber policy and sets the stage for the administration’s efforts to secure porous federal networks that have been repeatedly infiltrated by digital pranksters, cyber thieves and government-backed hackers from China and Russia.

“The trend is going in the wrong direction in cyberspace, and it’s time to stop that trend and reverse it on behalf of the American people,” White House Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert told reporters during a Thursday afternoon briefing.

Cyber specialists say the order breaks little new ground but is vastly improved over early drafts, which omitted input from key government policy specialists. The final version, cyber watchers say, essentially reaffirms the gradually emerging cyber policy path of the past two administrations.

As part of the executive order’s IT upgrade initiative, administration officials will study the feasibility of transitioning to shared IT services and networks across the government. An estimated 80 percent of the $80 billion federal IT budget goes toward taking care of aging systems.

Senior Trump adviser Jared Kushner’s Office of American Innovation will play a significant role in the federal IT modernization effort, multiple people tracking the efforts have told POLITICO. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order creating the American Technology Council, with Kushner as director, to help coordinate that effort. More here.

*** Personally, it must be mentioned there is a problem with this operating out of the White House and certainly out of Jared Kushner’s office, he is way too tasked to be effective. Other professionals in the cyber realm agree, the matter of a ‘net’ command and operations that collaborate with the private sector should be it’s own command and separated from NSA.

There was a significant hearing today on The Hill while the FBI hearing was going on. Those on the witness panel included James Clapper, Jim Stavridis and Michael Hayden. The Senate Armed Services Committee hosted this session and it included high rate discussions including why there is no cyber doctrine, why there are no offensive measures and what the highest cyber threats are for the homeland.

NSA Chief Testimony, Cyber Security Threats and Solutions

Posted on May 9, 2017May 9, 2017 by Denise Simon

French presidential candidate Marcon was hacked on Friday before the Sunday voting. Per the NSA Chief, U.S. Tipped Off France on the Russia hacks. The U.S. tipped off France when it saw that Russians were carrying out cyberattacks targeting French President-elect Emmanuel Macron, NSA chief Adm. Mike Rogers told a Senate panel on Tuesday. Macron’s campaign revealed it was hacked just hours before a campaigning blackout in the country ahead of the presidential election on Sunday. Macron ended up handily defeating his rival, Putin-backed Marine Le Pen. “We had become aware of Russian activity. We had talked to our French counterparts and gave them a heads-up—‘Look, we’re watching the Russians. We’re seeing them penetrate some of your infrastructure. Here’s what we’ve seen. What can we do to try to assist?’” Rogers told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

*** Meanwhile….there is no strategy or policy position on U.S. cyber warfare. However…

Next Steps for U.S. Cybersecurity in the Trump Administration: Active Cyber Defense

The failure of the government to provide adequate protection has led many cybersecurity analysts, scholars, and policymakers to suggest that there is a need for private-sector self-help. If the government is unable or unwilling to take or threaten credible offensive actions to deter cyberattacks or to punish those who engage in them, it may be incumbent upon private-sector actors to take up an active defense. In other words, the private sector may wish to take actions that go beyond protective software, firewalls, and other passive screening methods—and instead actively deceive, identify, or retaliate against hackers to raise their costs for conducting cyberattacks. Taking into consideration U.S., foreign, and international law, the U.S. should expressly allow active defenses that annoy adversaries while allowing only certified actors to engage in attribution-level active defenses. More aggressive active defenses that could be considered counterattacks should be taken only by law enforcement or in close collaboration with them.

Key Takeaways

If the government is unable or unwilling to deter cyberattacks, it may be incumbent upon private-sector actors to take up an active defense.

Before the U.S. authorizes private hack back, it must consider not only U.S. laws, but also foreign and international laws governing cyberspace.

Congress should establish a new active cyber defense system that enables the private sector to identify and respond to hackers more effectively.

***

Heritage: Americans want their cyber data to be safe from prying eyes. They also want the government to be able to catch criminals. Can they have both?

It’s an especially pertinent question to ask at a time when concerns over Russian hacking are prevalent. Can we expose lawbreakers without also putting law-abiders at greater risk? After all, the same iPhone that makes life easier for ordinary Americans also makes life easier for criminals.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. has described the operating system of the iPhone as “warrant-proof,” saying criminals are using the devices – encrypted by default – to their advantage. In one instance, he quoted an inmate who, ironically, called the iPhone a “gift from God.”

Divine involvement is a matter of debate, but there’s no question that when it comes to the choice of breaking the cybersecurity of criminals without also endangering the personal data of ordinary Americans, well, the devil is in the details.

This is especially true given the evolving nature of the threat. Even if we wanted to give the government access to all the metadata it wants (when, where, and who called), technology is moving away from phone calls to text messages and other non-telephony applications. Traditional metadata will be of limited use to law enforcement in pursuit of the savvy criminal of the future. Law enforcement needs to develop new strategies and investigative techniques without making us all prey.

It’s nearly impossible to assess the total monetary value for all successfully prosecuted cybercrimes in the U.S., let alone estimate the number of criminal cases that would have fallen apart without access to a smartphone’s data. The Department of Justice doesn’t publish such data. But, according to the 2014 Center for Strategic and International Studies report “Net Losses: Estimating the Global Cost of Cybercrime,” global cybercriminal activity is valued at $400 billion a year. Cybercrime damages trade, reduces competitiveness, and limits innovation and global growth.

The fundamental problem is that no one in the government is responsible for securing the internet for all of us. The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for safeguarding our nation’s critical infrastructure, yet the insecure internet presents cyberthreats to non-enterprise users affect individual security, safety and economic prosperity. Who is responsible for their security?

Some elements of the federal government are so focused on hunting down information against a few horrendous criminals that they don’t seem to realize they’re doing it at the expense of our right to privacy and online protection. We can appreciate their dedication in these noble causes, but the fact remains that the internet has become a host to more and more personal information ever since Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone.

Since then, the smartphone has evolved to have much more control over our lives, homes and vehicles. There is no sign of less data being held in the cyberspace.

In attempting to square this cyber-circle, the government would be wise to take a cue from the medical profession, which uses the Hippocratic oath to dictate an underlying requirement to refrain from causing harm to patients.

There is no such oath for members of the Department of Justice. They simply affirm that they will faithfully execute their duties without affirming that they will do so without harming the citizenry as a whole.

DOJ lawyers focus on individual prosecutions. That is too narrow of a definition of success. It forces them to use all means they can muster to make their prosecutions successful with little or no consideration of the larger harm their efforts may cause to the population in general.

That is a problem today and will only be magnified in the coming years as technology advances and the gap between those advances and the DOJ’s understanding of them widens. Within this environment, where insecurity breed’s criminality and stopping individual high-value criminals can motivate the DOJ to undermine security, one can only wonder, who is responsible for our security?

The world has changed. A new paradigm is needed to ensure the safety and security of all American’s data predicated on applying airtight security to our data. There is no return to the past. Perhaps the Trump administration will make this need for security a priority in a manner the previous administration did not.