Stellar article on Google’s spying machine, by Yasha Levine:
> The fact that the biggest, most data-hungry companies in Silicon Valley joined up in a cynical effort to shift attention away from their own for-profit surveillance operations and blame it all on big bad government is to be expected. What’s surprising is just how many supposed journalists and so-called privacy advocates fell for it.
I’d urge you to read it if you use *any* Google services.
Senator Paul meanwhile had decided to sue over NSA spying. We’ve hit a nice precipice of outrage and I doubt people stop making noise until the Supreme Court weighs in.
The NSA was asked by Senator Sanders whether or not the NSA, in any way, spied on members of Congress. Senator Sanders also outlined what he meant by spying. It was a great letter which left little wiggle room.
The NSA response was predictable and a non-answer answer. In short the NSA did everything it could to not have to admit that, under Senator Sanders description of spying, the NSA *does* spy on congress.
Watts Martin:
> All poking aside, the big problem with this design—which is not unique to them—is that it’s awfully hard to figure out what’s important here. If layout is supposed to lead the eye, this is a hedge maze painted bright red.
To my eye the entire main page looks like an assortment of advertisements — and not a grid layout of articles.
Eric Helgeson found that his ISP was redirecting him to merchants using their affiliate links:
> When looking at the URLs a little more closely I noticed fwdsnp was adding affiliate ID’s into the URLs. Did I have some malware that was hijacking my requests? I switched to Google’s DNS and the affiliate IDs were not injected into the URLs. Then I noticed one of the affiliate’s name was Arvig, which happens to be my ISP. Confirmed. It looks like I’m not the only one[1].
Read the article for the ISP response, it’s classic.
Jay Rosen:
> The point holds for collecting phone records. Even if no one in the government reviews whom I’ve called or texted, my liberty is violated because “someone has the power to do so should they choose.” Thus: It’s not privacy; it’s freedom. But “freedom advocates” would be an awkward construction in a news story.
Matthew Panzarino:
> Apple has contacted TechCrunch with a statement about the DROPOUTJEEP NSA program that detailed a system by which the organization claimed it could snoop on iPhone users. Apple says that it has never worked with the NSA to create any ‘backdoors’ that would allow that kind of monitoring, and that it was unaware of any programs to do so.
Click through and read the statement — it’s a pretty definitive statement from Apple (and came quickly, for Apple at least) and encompasses *all* Apple products not just the iPhone.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t a backdoor — as I understand it the NSA attacks BIOS level software. If that is the case perhaps Apple isn’t writing the BIOS’ on iPhone and therefore the NSA has partnered with an Apple vendor? This is pure speculation though.
Andrew Kim has a review up on Minimally Minimal of the Isar Rucksack. While I don’t think this is a bag I would enjoy, it is certainly very unique (and beautiful, no doubt in part due to Kim’s beautiful photography).
Marco Arment:
> While most of the press demands new hardware categories, I’d be perfectly happy if Apple never made a TV or a watch or a unicorn, and instead devoted the next five years to polishing the software and services for their existing product lines.
On this, I am in complete agreement with Arment. See also [Arment’s follow-up (of sorts) post](http://www.marco.org/2013/12/29/smart-watches-and-face-computers) on smart watches and Google Glass.
Just a quick reminder that you can save $10 on a yearly subscription to this site through the end of tomorrow. This isn't likely something I will do again so now is your chance (as they say).
Thanks for your support — it is your support that will hopefully pay the bills one day.
Jay Hathaway:
> According to leaked documents, the NSA claims a 100 percent success rate when it comes to implanting iOS devices with spyware. The documents suggest that the NSA needs physical access to a device to install the spyware—something the agency has achieved by rerouting shipments of devices purchased online—but a remote version of the exploit is also in the works.
UPDATE: [Steve Wildstrom reports](http://techpinions.com/apple-iphone-and-the-nsa-a-tale-of-sorry-journalism/26125):
>If you dig back through the sources here, you find a fascinating dump of documents in Der Spiegel (German original) about the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations including a 50-page catalog of snooping devices worthy of MI-6′s fictional Q. One, called DROPOUTJEEP, claimed the ability to compromise an iPhone by replacing altering its built-in software. “The initial release of DROPOUTJEEP will focus on installing the implant via close access methods,” the 2008 document said. “A remote capability will be pursued in a future release.” In other words, before any snooping took place, the NSA first needed to get its hands on your iPhone and replace its software1 .
Paul Graham following up on a controversial quote that was attributed to him from the $400/year *The Information*:
> “We” doesn’t refer to society; it refers to Y Combinator. And the women I’m talking about are not women in general, but would-be founders who are not hackers.
> I didn’t say women can’t be taught to be hackers. I said YC can’t do it in 3 months.
> I didn’t say women haven’t been programming for 10 years. I said women who aren’t programmers haven’t been programming for 10 years.
> I didn’t say people can’t learn to be hackers later in life. I said people cannot at any age learn to be hackers simultaneously with starting a startup whose thesis derives from insights they have as hackers.
Of all people [Michael Arrington has a good take on the situation](http://uncrunched.com/2013/12/30/the-disinformation/):
> And really, three sins were committed. The first was changing a quote. You just can’t do that, ever. The second was omitting contextual information which would have made the statement intelligible. And the third was taking a background discussion about Paul’s partner Jessica Livingston and turning it into an “interview” in the first place.
UPDATE: [Jessica Lessin has posted about this on her personal site](http://jessicalessin.com/2013/12/31/on-the-information-and-how-we-operate/) (not the site in question). It’s a shit defense, and her reasoning for editing his quote makes zero sense — unless of course sensationalism is what they wanted.
John Chen CEO of BlackBerry:
> Today, our company is strong financially, technologically savvy and is well-positioned for the future. In less than two months, my team and I have engineered a new strategy to stabilize the company, return to our core strength in enterprise and security, and maximize efficiencies.
That’s all you need to know about the new strategy: it was *engineered*. I think that word alone encompasses why BlackBerry is failing so quickly. They are making data driven decisions, and not decisions that create an emotional connection between the user and the device. In other words: they are trying to accomplish a task, a feature, and not trying to generally make life better for the user.
This is a concept you either get, and therefore accept, or one you don’t get and flat out reject — there’s little middle ground that I can see in the “make life better” business mindset that Apple is preaching.
But, since we have extra words in Chen’s post, allow me to point out two more things:
> When it comes to enterprise, we’re still the leader. Don’t be fooled by the competition’s rhetoric claiming to be more secure or having more experience than BlackBerry. With a global enterprise customer base exceeding 80,000, we have three times the number of customers compared to Good, AirWatch and MobileIron combined. This makes BlackBerry the leader in mobile-device management.
He plays up security the most, but let’s remember that reports are the NSA has a backdoor into BlackBerry servers (likely all devices). At this juncture in time I think it is highly irresponsible to tout digital security.
Lastly:
> In the last 60 days, more than 40 million new iOS and Android users have registered to use BBM. We will continue to invest in this popular service and build out its features and channels, with plans to turn it into a revenue stream in the coming years.
All 40 million of which *used* to be using BlackBerry devices — not sure that is a “win” there Mr. Chen.
Edward Wyatt:
> In Riga, speeds average 42 megabits a second, but many users had service of 100 to 500 megabits as of mid-December, according to Ookla. In San Antonio, broadband speeds average 16 megabits a second. Higher speeds are available through cable TV and phone companies, but the expense is such that many households cannot afford a connection.
There’s another side that these reports often gloss over: upload speed. When everyone first got on the web download was paramount because the web was mostly consumption. I’d argue that now most people also *add to* the web in the form of photos, videos, etc being uploaded. In the US a standard Comcast internet service account is likely 20mbps guaranteed down, and 5mbps guaranteed upload speeds. That is sad.
Even my upgraded Comcast service nets me just 50mbps down and 20 mbps up — and I pay a price for that which most people would flat out refuse to pay.
Faster internet services are among one of the few reasons left to live in densely populated areas.
Tyler Fisher:
> I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but here is a crucial aspect: web services cannot exploit the general user’s ignorance about the web. Even if users do not care about owning their data or understand what owning their data means, the web service cannot take advantage of that and sell their data. This is where the social web has failed us. The social web has exploited the ignorance of the average user of the web for profit.
Jacob Appelbaum, Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach, Christian Stöcker, Jörg Schindler And Holger Stark reporting for Spiegel on the NSA TAO operations:
> A comprehensive internal presentation titled “QUANTUM CAPABILITIES,” which SPIEGEL has viewed, lists virtually every popular Internet service provider as a target, including Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter and YouTube. “NSA QUANTUM has the greatest success against Yahoo, Facebook and static IP addresses,” it states. The presentation also notes that the NSA has been unable to employ this method to target users of Google services. Apparently, that can only be done by Britain’s GCHQ intelligence service, which has acquired QUANTUM tools from the NSA.
And:
> Take, for example, when they intercept shipping deliveries. If a target person, agency or company orders a new computer or related accessories, for example, TAO can divert the shipping delivery to its own secret workshops. The NSA calls this method interdiction. At these so-called “load stations,” agents carefully open the package in order to load malware onto the electronics, or even install hardware components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies. All subsequent steps can then be conducted from the comfort of a remote computer.
The last quote makes a lot of sense, and is likely the reason why people like Schneier went and bought a computer from a store with cash as it’s not likely to have been intercepted. The first quote block though shows the amazing toolset at the TAO’s disposal.
Jacob Appelbaum, Judith Horchert and Christian Stöcker:
> These NSA agents, who specialize in secret back doors, are able to keep an eye on all levels of our digital lives — from computing centers to individual computers, from laptops to mobile phones. For nearly every lock, ANT seems to have a key in its toolbox. And no matter what walls companies erect, the NSA’s specialists seem already to have gotten past them.
> This, at least, is the impression gained from flipping through the 50-page document. The list reads like a mail-order catalog, one from which other NSA employees can order technologies from the ANT division for tapping their targets’ data. The catalog even lists the prices for these electronic break-in tools, with costs ranging from free to $250,000.
Great tip from Katie Floyd — I had no idea this could be automated.
The Guardian:
> US district judge William Pauley said the dragnet program “represents the government’s counter-punch” to al-Qaida in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The decision conflicts with a ruling in another case, increasing the likelihood that the US supreme court will take up the issue.
I think the best thing that can happen is for the Supreme Court to rule on this — one way or another we need an open court ruling and the Supreme Court is the best court to hand down this ruling.
Dr. Drang:
>Many of us aren’t writers, per se, but we end up doing a lot of writing to communicate what our real jobs are. This utilitarian writing often consists of taking a mound of disparate facts and explaining them through organization. This is a complex process that’s hard to do in an information-free writing environment.
He’s got good thoughts on distraction free writing tools. I try not to get caught up in the ideology behind these apps, and instead focus on whether or not they meet my needs better than other tools. So far, writing in an app like Pages or TextMate is more annoying to me than Ulysses or Writer (Pro). The good doctor is right, as it does come down to how you write.