Mediaboss Marketing

On Wednesday, July 5, British nonprofit Privacy International filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the National Security Agency (NSA), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and other U.S. agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. The suit seeks a copy of the current agreement governing sharing of signals intelligence among the Five Eyes alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If successful, this request could provide new insight to domestic and overseas privacy advocates on how intercepted information is shared and could influence regulators already wary of the United States practices in this area.

Privacy Internationals suit arises from the long history of signals intelligence sharing between the United States and United Kingdom. In 1946, the countries executed an informal document, titled the United Kingdom-United States Communication Intelligence Agreement (the UKUSA Agreement), committing to share both signals intelligence itself and the techniques used to gather it. In 1955, the parties proposed a restatement of the UKUSA Agreement (which had by that time been joined by Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), and the NSA declassified records from those negotiations in 2010. These documents represent the most recent version of the UKUSA Agreement available to the public.

In its complaint, Privacy International seeks to compel the NSA, the ODNI, the State Department, and the National Archives and Records Administration to provide the text of the UKUSA Agreement now in effect, as well as records on the defendants rules and policies governing their sharing of intelligence gathered from operations relating to foreign communications.The 1955 UKUSA Agreement defines foreign communications to include communications of the Government of a foreign country, or of any person or persons acting or purporting to act therefor, and [redacted] communications originated by nationals of a foreign country which may contain information of value.

Of course, the rise of the Internet has given the NSA and its overseas partners opportunities to gather intelligence in ways not anticipated in 1955, and these new technologies create new difficulties in determining whether participants in a communication are indeed foreign nationals. The same difficulty prompted the enactment of the of the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, each of which require the United States to take measures to minimize the chance of intercepting communications from U.S. persons. (The complaint likewise requests records describing these minimization procedures.) Privacy International argues that requiring the disclosure of any privacy safeguards mandated by, or implemented under, the current UKUSA Agreement will aid the public in understanding their rights and advocating for any needed improvements.

Updated information on the UKUSA Agreement, if released, could add to the international debate on privacy protections and surveillance. For example, in 2015, the European Court of Justice invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, which had permitted the processing of European personal data in the United States due to NSA surveillance programs publicized by Edward Snowden. The Safe Harbors replacement, the Privacy Shield, is itself subject to at least two similar challenges under European law, and the European Commission will conduct its first annual review of the new regime later this year. Even the publicity accompanying Privacy Internationals initial filing could draw attention to the U.S.surveillance practices, which could in turn threaten the Privacy Shields continued viability.

To view a copy of the complaint, click here.

Read more from the original source:
Civil Libertarians Seek Intelligence Sharing Agreement From NSA - JD Supra (press release)

WASHINGTON After months of delay, the Trump administration is finalizing plans to revamp the nation's military command for defensive and offensive cyber operations in hopes of intensifying America's ability to wage cyber war against the Islamic State group and other foes, according to U.S. officials.

Under the plans, U.S. Cyber Command would eventually be split off from the intelligence-focused National Security Agency.

Details are still being worked out, but officials say they expect a decision and announcement in the coming weeks. The officials weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter so requested anonymity.

Making cyber an independent military command will put the fight in digital space on the same footing as more traditional realms of battle on land, in the air, at sea and in space. The move reflects the escalating threat of cyberattacks and intrusions from other nation states, terrorist groups and hackers, and comes as the U.S. faces ever-widening fears about Russian hacking following Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election.

The U.S. has long operated quietly in cyberspace, using it to collect information, disrupt enemy networks and aid conventional military missions. But as other nations and foes expand their use of cyberspying and attacks, the U.S. is determined to improve its ability to incorporate cyber operations into its everyday warfighting.

Experts said the command will need time to find its footing.

"Right now I think it's inevitable, but it's on a very slow glide path," said Jim Lewis, a cybersecurity expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But, he added, "A new entity is not going to be able to duplicate NSA's capabilities."

The NSA, for examples, has 300 of the country's leading mathematicians "and a gigantic super computer," Lewis said. "Things like this are hard to duplicate."

National Security Agency director Adm. Mike Rogers speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, June 7, 2017, in Washington. Photo Credit: Alex Brandon/AP He added, however, that over time, the U.S. has increasingly used cyber as a tactical weapon, bolstering the argument for separating it from the NSA.

The two highly secretive organizations, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, have been under the same four-star commander since Cyber Command's creation in 2009.

But the Defense Department has been agitating for a separation, perceiving the NSA and intelligence community as resistant to more aggressive cyberwarfare, particularly after the Islamic State's transformation in recent years from an obscure insurgent force into an organization holding significant territory across Iraq and Syria and with a worldwide recruiting network.

While the military wanted to attack IS networks, intelligence objectives prioritized gathering information from them, according to U.S. officials familiar with the debate. They weren't authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly and requested anonymity.

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter sent a plan to President Barack Obama last year to make Cyber Command an independent military headquarters and break it away from the NSA, believing that the agency's desire to collect intelligence was at times preventing the military from eliminating ISIS' ability to raise money, inspire attacks and command its widely dispersed network of fighters.

Carter, at the time, also pushed for the ouster of Adm. Mike Rogers, who still heads both bodies. The Pentagon, he warned, was losing the war in the cyber domain, focusing on cyberthreats from nations such as Iran, Russia and China, rather than on countering the communications and propaganda campaigns of internet-savvy insurgents.

"NSA is truly an intelligence-collection organization," said Lauren Fish, a research associate with the Center for a New American Security. "It should be collecting information, writing reports on it. Cyber Command is meant to be an organization that uses tools to have military operational effect."

After President Trump's inauguration, officials said Defense Secretary Jim Mattis endorsed much of the plan. But debate over details has dragged on for months.

It's unclear how fast the Cyber Command will break off on its own. Some officials believe the new command isn't battle-ready, given its current reliance on the NSA's expertise, staff and equipment. That effort will require the department to continue to attract and retain cyber experts.

Cyber Command was created in 2009 by the Obama administration to address threats of cyber espionage and other attacks. It was set up as a sub-unit under U.S. Strategic Command to coordinate the Pentagon's ability to conduct cyberwarfare and to defend its own networks, including those that are used by combat forces in battle.

Officials originally said the new cyber effort would likely involve hundreds, rather than thousands, of new employees.

Since then, the command has grown to more than 700 military and civilian employees. The military services also have their own cyber units, with a goal of having 133 fully operational teams with as many as 6,200 personnel.

Its proposed budget for next year is $647 million. Rogers told Congress in May that represents a 16 percent increase over this year's budget to cover costs associated with building the cyber force, fighting IS and becoming an independent command.

Under the new plan being forwarded by the Pentagon to the White House, officials said Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville would be nominated to lead Cyber Command. Leadership of the NSA could be turned over to a civilian.

Mayville is currently the director of the military's joint staff and has extensive experience as a combat-hardened commander. He deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, leading the 173rd Airborne Brigade when it made its assault into Iraq in March 2003 and later heading coalition operations in eastern Afghanistan.

More here:
US finalizing plans to revamp cyber command - Military Times

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper famously (or infamously) told Congress the National Security Agency did not wittingly collect data on Americans. That turned out to be false.

More recently, Sen. Ron WydenRon WydenHow many Americans are swept up in the NSA's snooping programs? Overnight Finance: Yellen pushes back on GOP banking deregulation plan | Trump dodges on Russia sanctions bill | Trump floats tariffs on steel imports | Budget director touts MAGAnomics Dems on tax reform outreach: Talk is cheap MORE (D-Ore.) asked the current director of national intelligence, Dan CoatsDan CoatsHouse moves to bar Pentagon contracts with firms backing North Korean cyberattacks How many Americans are swept up in the NSA's snooping programs? Granting NSA permanent bulk surveillance authority would be a mistake MORE whether the government could use Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic.

Not to my knowledge. That would be illegal, Coats responded.

However, a subsequent letter from Coats office to Wydens office suggests the directors answer was incomplete. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence clarified that section 702(b)(4) plainly states we may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States. The DNI interpreted Senator Wydens question to ask about this provision and answered accordingly.

FISA Section 702 authorizes two major NSA snooping programs. One is upstream collection, a process in which the NSA collects digital communications through the internets backbone undersea cables that process large volumes of internet traffic, which internet service providers send to the government. The government attempts to sort the data for foreign targets information and then is supposed to discard the rest.

We know some Americans information is retained when they communicate with a target, though minimization procedures are in place to protect their identities. Until recently, the information also could be swept up if they communicated about a target. The NSA recently announced it was ending about collection in the wake of a series of compliance incidents and privacy concerns. Some other Americans data may be swept up due to technological limitations that affect scope of collection. In other words, the NSA hasnt invested in infrastructure that can narrow their collection.

The problem is that we do not know how many Americans are swept up in 702 surveillance. We do not even have a rough estimate. A recent letter from privacy groups admonished Coats for refusing to provide information on the number of Americans swept up in 702 collection information that both he and his predecessor had promised to deliver.

Coats intransigence follows a familiar pattern of the NSA promising transparency and then reneging on those promises. Indeed, for the past six years the agency has flummoxed congressional oversight, with its reluctance to give the public hard data on this matter. When a powerful bureaucracy ignores both civil-society groups and its constitutional overseers, what is the solution?

Congress should step in and do its job, which requires going beyond public reprimands from a handful of members. The first branch has the power to legislate and write laws requiring the executive branch to reveal the number of Americans swept up in 702 collection. The letter from privacy groups recommended such a deep dive, but the intelligence community argued it would be counterproductively invasive. A clear legal mandate from Congress could outline how the search would be conducted, with accurate protections for Americans who potentially could be unmasked.

As to why the NSA would be so reluctant to answer such a simple request, privacy blogger Marcy Wheeler recently detailed a culture of ignorance that has emerged within the NSA in the wake of an July 2010 ruling by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge John Bates concerning the deliberate collection of domestic content via upstream collection. In Wheeler's characterization, Bates said that if the government knew it had obtained domestic content, it had to delete the data, but if it didnt know, it could keep it. A perfect catch-22.

These instructions cultivate a practice of willful ignorance, which probably explains the hesitance of the intelligence community to answer Wyden's question publicly. A new law would nip this habit in the bud and place heavy incentives for transparency. Until a new law is passed, privacy advocates will be at the mercy of the NSAs mood.

Civil-society groups have nobly tried to fill the gap where Congress has been lacking in its oversight and lawmaking role. It is imperative then that Section 702 be updated substantially, before it is reauthorized at the end of the year. Both Americans privacy rights and the intelligence community stand to benefit from clearer legal boundaries. It is Congress job to hold the executive branchs feet to the fire the very notion of the separation of powers, of checks and balances and of a free democracy depend on it.

Jonathan Haggerty (@RplusLequalsJLH) is a research assistant at the R Street InstituteandArthur Rizer (@ArthurRizer) is the national security and justice policy director.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See more here:
How many Americans are swept up in the NSA's snooping programs? - The Hill (blog)

Staff Reporter

Windhoek-The Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA) has explained that employment and unemployment rates are derived from the labour force or the economically active population. In Namibia, this population is 1,026,268 people, and out of this about 676,885 persons are employed (66 percent).

The unemployment rate among the youth is 43.4 percent for those in the 15 to 34 year old age bracket. This age bracket adopted by the NSA is the official definition of youth, as recommended by Africa Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) for the purpose of international comparisons of labour statistics.

The 70 percent unemployment rates in the age group 15 to 19 years, which recently made headline news in the press and on social media must be seen in relation to the labour force population of that age group, which is 51,725 persons, the NSA said.

The total population in this age group is 242,819 persons, of which majority of them (about 191,094 people or 78.7 percent) are regarded as economically inactive (in school and not available for work and those who are disabled), because they are still in school or training, or for other reasons like disabilities, explained the NSA spokesman Nelson Ashipala.

Ashipala noted that the survey results recorded 46,377 persons who are not in education and/or not in training either, plus 5,348 who are in education/training, which makes up 51,725 people in the age-group 15 to 19 years during the interview period in October/November of 2016.

As per International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions, work or employment take precedence over anything, and also the entire Labour Force Survey Analysis is always and has always been from 15 years and above. Hence, we cannot exclude them unless they state that they are not available for work either, because they are in school or for other reasons which makes them inactive, said Ashipala.

Historically, unemployment rates in this group has always been high due to the fact that many of those who found themselves in the labour force have low qualifications as well and the labour market is not able to absorb them.

The question that should be asked is: why do we find so many youths who are supposed to be in school now in the labour force, rather than questioning the validity of the results of the survey, which has been consistent in all the four surveys conducted by the NSA.

In fact, it is true that the picture should have shown many (if not all) of the 15 to 19 years to be in the category of economically inactive, as they should be in school. This means that there is a need for a socio-economic analysis on this matter and it also implies that the Ministry of Labour, through its labour inspectors, needs to look into the matter of minimum legal age of employment, Ashipala added.

In addition, the strict unemployment rate (people who have actively been looking for work during the four weeks prior to survey) for the youth aged 15 to 19 years is 51.3 percent. This figure is still high and it tells a story of the dire need for an income at this age (15 to 19 years), Ashipala noted.

The rest is here:
NSA explains youth unemployment statistics - New Era

As India resolvesto dissolve the Sikkim sector border standoff with Beijing through diplomatic channels, all eyes are on National Security Advisor Ajit Doval'slikely visit to Chinafor BRICS NSAs' meeting on 27 and 28 July.

If the NSA does end upvisitingBeijing, it will be a crucial trip and a probable step to resolve the almost-month-old border dispute. However, at a time when China remains unyielding in the face of the current crisis, Doval's traditional tough stance against Beijing raises doubts over whether any meaningful progress can be expected from his visit.

File image of National Security Adviser Ajit Doval with China's State Councillor, Yang Jiechi. PTI

Doval, who was famously characterised as 'the hawkish Doval' by former RAW chief AS Dulat, is known for his hardliner stance in negotiating border disputes with China.

His rare public interactions, since he assumed office of NSA, have revealed that Doval prefers depending on military solutions over ceding ground in compromises. When India's traditional policy in handling border disputes with its neighbours has propagated a defensive approach, it was Doval who pitched the concept of defensive-offensive and offensive foreign policy.

It was under Doval's leadership that India carried out surgical strikes against Pakistan, and it was the current NSA who remarked that 'India would not compromise on its territorial interests and sovereignty,' when asked about his views on negotiations with China.

An article inAsia Timesin 2016 commented on the said statement of Doval: "He (Doval) said at the Munich Security Conference in New Delhi in October 2014 that 'India would not compromise on its territorial interests', when the very purpose of the meetings of the Special Representatives of the two countries is to seek a compromise on the dispute."

The impact of Doval's policy views, which clearly pervades Modi government's foreign policy, has been markedly different from his predecessors so much that his ideas on China, Pakistan and India's territorial disputes are now commonly referred to as the Doval doctrine.Firstpost looked at his selective public remarks mostly made duringhis Nani Palkiwala Memorial Lecture, 2014 and the Lalit Doshi Memorial Lecture, 2015 to help decode his views on China in context of the current border row.

Answering a question about tackling China's growing might, Doval conceded that China's militaryis much more stronger than India, even as the former Intelligence Bureau directorhailedIndia's missile technology. He said that it was tough for India to match China's might in the next fifty years, but he advocated ramping up missile technology to target China's economic installations, which he said were the Dragon's only vulnerable spot.

These remarks were made during a public interaction on 27 August, 2010, as shown in this YouTube video, however,Firstpostcould not independently verify the source's veracity. Doval's past comments on China's 'bottomless territorial hunger' assumes importance in these times, as the NSA's visit to Beijing in the coming week could be a make-or-break situation on India-China border stalemate.

The NSA's past comments become crucialalso becauseChina is slowly increasing its naval presence in Indian Ocean region and has carried out military exercises in Tibet, even as the border standoff in Sikkim is going on.

Another report inThe Times of India,quoted Doval's remarks at theMunich Security Conference in 2014. Doval had said that even though relationship with China are "very important", India must not compromise on issues of sovereignty. "I would like to develop our relations to such an extent till the time our territorial and integral sovereignty ... we would not able to compromise on it," Doval said.

Doval's remarks gain significance at atimeChina isramping up the anti-India rhetoric,in what it views as an unprecedented dispute with New Delhi. India and China are locked in a standoff in the Doklam area in Sikkim sector near the Bhutan tri-junction for over three weeks after the Chinese army attempted to build a road in the disputed narrow stretch of land. China has made it clear that back channel negotiations will only bear fruit after India withdraws its troop.

It will be interesting to see whether Doval sticks to his hardliner approach towards Beijing at a time when China too shows no inclination to compromise. TheAsian Timesarticle had compared Doval's approach to his predecessors. The article stated, that while Narendra Modi under Doval's influence has stuck to requesting China to'reconsider' its received positions on existing disputes with India, Doval's predecessorBrajesh Mishra had clocked considerable progress in Sino-India ties and had been hopeful of reaching positive results.

Continue reading here:
Ajit Doval likely to visit China: NSA's famed 'Doval doctrine' and deconstructing India's stand on Beijing - Firstpost