Showing posts with label dangerous dependencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangerous dependencies. Show all posts

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Your Digital Footprints: An Indelible Electronic Trail

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .






Regardless of how you may feel politically about Hillary Rodham Clinton, her opinions, politics or candidacy, a recent article in the New York Times exposes some of the dangers which are manifest in our internet (or other electronic) communications and activities. While the article dealt with the political and legal implications of some "newly discovered" emails which Ms. Clinton failed to report to governmental authorities, the events described in the article could just have easily happened to you, me or anybody. Electronic communications contain our digital fingerprints (or, if you prefer, digital footprints) and always leave an indelible electronic trail.

While many of us are already striving to cover our digital fingerprints by regularly destroying or otherwise eradicating our email records (and even the hard drives which facilitated their creation, sending and receipt!), or by curtailing our activities and disclosures on social media, our digital footprints are not only something to be concerned about on our side; they have been transmitted to other parties (even if we have done all that is possible on our side to make them disappear).

This transmittal activity means that your electronic communications, whether sent or received, always leave an indelible electronic trail. With our increasingly dangerous dependency upon email and text messaging in lieu of in-person conversations and written correspondence, the potential for vulnerability and victimization is increasing for every otherwise tech-savvy citizen or subject. Remember that your electronic communications involve multiple parties - not just you!

There is no such thing as digital privacy. An excerpt from the Times article titled "State Department Gets Libya Emails That Clinton Didn't Hand Over," has serious implications for all of us.

The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The State Department said on Thursday that 15 emails sent or received by Hillary Rodham Clinton were missing from records that she has turned over, raising new questions about whether she deleted work-related emails from the private account she used exclusively while in office.

The disclosure appeared to open the door for Republicans on Capitol Hill to get more deeply involved in the issue. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is running for president, said he planned to send a series of questions to the State Department about the missing emails and about why it allowed her to use the personal account.

Republicans said that the State Department’s statement was likely to increase pressure on the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, to subpoena the server in Mrs. Clinton’s home that housed the account.

Mrs. Clinton has said that she gave the State Department about 50,000 pages of emails that she deemed to be related to her work as secretary of state and deleted roughly the same number. She said the messages she deleted were personal, relating to topics like yoga, family vacations and her mother’s funeral.

Her longtime confidant and adviser Sidney Blumenthal, responding two weeks ago to a subpoena from the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, gave it dozens of emails he had exchanged with Mrs. Clinton when she was in office. Mr. Blumenthal did not work at the State Department at the time, but he routinely provided her with intelligence memos about Libya, some with dubious information, which Mrs. Clinton circulated to her deputies.

State Department officials then crosschecked the emails from Mr. Blumenthal with the ones Mrs. Clinton had handed over and discovered that she had not provided nine of them and portions of six others.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, who is running for president, said that she had given the State Department “over 55,000 pages of materials,” including “all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”

The chairman of the House committee, Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said that many of the emails that Mrs. Clinton had not handed over showed that “she was soliciting and regularly corresponding with Sidney Blumenthal, who was passing unvetted intelligence information about Libya from a source with a financial interest in the country.”

“It just so happens these emails directly contradict her public statement that the messages from Blumenthal were unsolicited,” he said. Mr. Blumenthal identified the source of his information as Tyler Drumheller, a former high-ranking C.I.A. official, according to a person with knowledge of his testimony to the Benghazi panel. Mr. Drumheller was part of a group that sought to do business in Libya.

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have argued that the committee’s mission has crept far beyond its original scope: to investigate the Benghazi attacks, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Republican committee members have said that they are within their right to look into her email use because the resolution that created the panel directed them to examine how the administration complied with previous inquiries into the attacks. Mrs. Clinton’s emails relating to the attacks were not handed over to any of the panels conducting those inquiries.

Other panels in Congress may consider investigating the matter. Mr. Graham, who oversees a Senate subcommittee with sway over the State Department’s budget, said that the department “seems to have a system that is not working very well” in regards to its production of documents to Congress.

“I’m going to ask them whether they think Mrs. Clinton has handed over everything she should and what they are going to do about it,” he said. “And if they give me runaround responses, we’ll drag them up on Capitol Hill and make them answer these questions in public.”

While the State Department acknowledged that it did not have several of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, it also told the Benghazi committee that it had not turned over other messages of hers. The department said that it had not done so because the contents of those messages fell outside the requests made by the committee.

“The State Department is working diligently to review and publish the 55,000 pages of emails we received from former Secretary Clinton,” it said in a statement.

That statement is unlikely to satisfy the committee, which believes it has been clear in its requests. Members of the panel have contended that the State Department has withheld documents to protect Mrs. Clinton and grind the investigation to a halt. State Department officials have said that one of the reasons it has taken so long to produce documents is that the department’s record-keeping system is cumbersome. They have also said that the committee has not been specific enough in its requests.
###

The Takeaway: Every sender, or recipient, as well as all parties copied on all email and social media correspondence can become sources of information, regardless of your attempts to obfuscate, or destroy evidence of communications on your side, by yourself. And as regulatory and legal authorities become increasingly inquisitive about our communications via all electronic media (even our wireless cellphones, with our phone conversations and texts) in waging the war on terrorism, an increasing segment of the populations in each of the respective industrialized nations will become targets -- for better or for worse.

The Global Futurist Solution: If you wish to divulge or impart secret information to a second party, and you are reasonably certain that the party in question has not been bodily rigged to record any audio or video, have a live, in-person chat with that person (assuming , of course that you can be seen and don't necessarily mind being photographed from a distance associating with this second party) in a heavily-populated area. Nobody said that keeping secrets was particularly easy; and the trend is that it will become increasingly difficult.

Thank you, as always, for reading me.

Douglas E. Castle for The Global Futurist Blog

Please join me on LinkedIn


Respond To Douglas E Castle
http://bit.ly/CASTLEDIRECT

FUNDING BUTTON LINK

THE GLOBAL FUTURIST – Douglas E Castle

http://theglobalfuturist.blogspot.com

Discovering and following significant trends across an extensive range of domestic and international consumer, business, demographic, cultural, economic, political, technological and other key areas of influence and impact on life and business; predicting future change, preparing for it and profiting from it.

Key Terms: business, forecasting, trends, future, prediction, disruption, displacement, innovation, complexity theory, economic waves and cycles, projections, planning



***************
This site is proudly affiliated with Global Edge International Consulting Associates, Inc. ["GEI”]
Free Subscription to The GEI Business Daily!
Sign Up For Our Free GEI Newsletter!
Receive Our Free GEI RSS Feed!

***Follow GEI's Company Page On LinkedIn!

Please Like GEI on Facebook...
Like GEI On Facebook


Please Follow GEI on LinkedIn...
Visit Our Linked In Company Page

Please Follow GEI on Twitter...
Follow Us On Twitter

Friday, June 5, 2015

Top Five Techno Trends: The Next Five Years -- Douglas E. Castle - The Global Futurist

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .



During the course of these next five years, several macro-trends are emerging for all futurists, strategists and investment professionals to observe closely. While I do not offer investment, financial, tax, legal or accounting advice in this article, any prudent businessperson should take heed of these sweeping macro-trends:

1) Technology will become increasingly smaller;

2) Technology will become increasingly multifunctional;

3) Technology will become increasingly either wearable on the Human body or implantable (think of applied nanotechnology) within the Human body;

4) Technology will be increasingly integrated with Human physiology and psychology;

5) Technology will become significantly capable of sending and receiving data, and acting upon it, in terms of self-regulation (think of a very futuristic thermostat).

It is unquestionable that biometrics, biofeedback, miniaturization technologies and all of the macro-trends described briefly above will represent the approaching intimacy of the relationship between Human and machine. Devices will be seen as enhancements to Human health, intelligence and capabilities. We will become increasingly dependent upon these devices, rendering us increasingly vulnerable to those who control or who can commandeer this technology.

Yes. It's going to be a brave new world - but with some major dangerous dependencies lying in wait.

Thank you, as always, for reading me.

Douglas E Castle

Join me on LinkedIn


Respond To Douglas E Castle
http://bit.ly/CASTLEDIRECT

FUNDING BUTTON LINK

THE GLOBAL FUTURIST – Douglas E Castle

http://theglobalfuturist.blogspot.com

Discovering and following significant trends across an extensive range of domestic and international consumer, business, demographic, cultural, economic, political, technological and other key areas of influence and impact on life and business; predicting future change, preparing for it and profiting from it.

Key Terms: business, forecasting, trends, future, prediction, disruption, displacement, innovation, complexity theory, economic waves and cycles, projections, planning

Saturday, September 29, 2012

CYBERWARFARE: Not "IF" But "WHEN".

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .







Cyberwarfare is here. There have already been attacks, both domestic and foreign in origin where a sophisticated and specialized virus was used to either steal data, destroy computer drives and systems, and, ultimately [referring to the case of the Stuxnet virus which crippled Iran's rapidly-developing nuclear facilities] targeting and destroying or neutralizing physical facilities. Consider these as warnings of our dependencies and vulnerabilities to computer-run lives.

Bear in mind that virtually all of every industrialized nation's infrastructure (i.e., power, traffic lights, communications, power plants, reservoirs, air transportation, military, police, fire departments, capital markets and almost every other thing that is essential to a civilization as we have come to know it) is completely dependent upon "nerve centers" of computers for automation and ongoing operation of everything. We have all, as individuals and as nation states, become completely dependent and addicted to computer technology.

With major international cyberwarfare (nation against nation, or groups of nations against groups of other nations divided by ideology, ethnicity, level of economic development, availability of fuels and key resources, etc.) it is not a matter of possibility, or even of probability -- it is simply a matter of when it will happen, who will initiate it, and what (or whom) the target will be.

Society's greatest enemy is also its greatest protector - the expert computer hacker. And nations invested in cyberdefense are recruiting hackers into their governments and into their military forces. What an irony. A brief article in The New York Times follows:




September 26, 2012

Cyberwarfare Emerges From Shadows for Public Discussion by U.S. Officials

WASHINGTON — For years, even as the United States carried out sophisticated cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear program and the Pentagon created a Cyber Command, officials have been hesitant to discuss American offensive cyberwarfare programs openly. Since June, in fact, F.B.I. agents have been investigating leaks to The New York Times about the computer attacks on Tehran.

But the reticence is giving way. The chorus of official voices speaking publicly about American cyberattack strategy and capabilities is steadily growing, and some experts say greater openness will allow the United States to stake out legal and ethical rules in the uncharted territory of computer combat. Others fear that talking too boldly about American plans could fuel a global computer arms race.

Next month the Pentagon’s research arm will host contractors who want to propose “revolutionary technologies for understanding, planning and managing cyberwarfare.” It is an ambitious program that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, calls Plan X, and the public description talks about “understanding the cyber battlespace,” quantifying “battle damage” and working in Darpa’s “cyberwar laboratory.”

James A. Lewis, who studies cybersecurity at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, says he sees the Plan X public announcement as “a turning point” in a long debate over secrecy about cyberwarfare. He said it was timely, given that public documents suggest that at least 12 of the world’s 15 largest militaries are building cyberwarfare programs.

“I see Plan X as operationalizing and routinizing cyberattack capabilities,” Mr. Lewis said. “If we talk openly about offensive nuclear capabilities and every other kind, why not cyber?”
Yet like drone aircraft, which similarly can be used for both spying and combat, American cyberattack tools now are passing through a zone of semisecrecy, no longer denied but not fully discussed. President Obama has spoken publicly twice about drones; he has yet to speak publicly on American cyberattacks.

Last week, at a public Cyber Command legal conference, the State Department’s top lawyer, Harold H. Koh — who gave the Obama administration’s first public speech on targeted killing of terrorists in 2010 — stated the administration’s position that the law of war, including such principles as minimizing harm to civilians, applies to cyberattacks.
####


What are the implications for the near-term and the longer-term? The Global Futurist Blog examines them, and makes some trend-supported predictions:

1) CEOs, world leaders and the Elders of dynastic families will form strategic partnerships and alliances with skilled hackers;

2) An increased percentage of the budget of every business, government and dynastic family's income and assets will spent upon or invested in computer security;

3) The unspoken demand for hackers as either espionage participants of as security consultants will be greater (within the next 12 months) than the demand for any other type of professional or worker;

4) Government and quasi-government agencies (such as contractors) will be conducting limited cyber attack exercises on innocent civilians domiciled in their own countries and in foreign countries. There will be colossal collateral damage and a great deal of lying and whitewashing in order to cover it up by those responsible for giving the orders;

5) While true Artificial Intelligence is something that will be developed in the more distant future, a great deal of the world military's technological focus will be on combining computer science with robotics and weaponry.

Douglas E. Castle for The Global Futurist Blog, The Internationalist Page Blog and The Links 4 Life Alerts Blog.  


New Retweet And Comment Button - You can Retweet this article and add your own editorial comments. Try it! - by Douglas E. Castle and RD Watkins



View DOUGLAS E. CASTLE's profile on LinkedIn

Douglas E Castle
All Blogs & RSS Feeds

Share this page
Contact Douglas Castle
Follow Me on Pinterest


Blog Archive

Bookmark and Share