Motherboard has details of the latest news, which has big implications for hacking and security

Librarian of Congress and US Copyright Office just proposed new rules that will give consumers and independent repair experts wide latitude to legally hack embedded software on their devices in order to repair or maintain them. This exemption to copyright law will apply to smartphones, tractors, cars, smart home appliances, and many other devices.

This goes directly to the heart of the matter with lawyers at companies like Apple, who convince engineering to penalize owners of technology who attempt to fix things they own

Apple has a built-in kill switch that can prevent new MacBook Pros from functioning if they have been repaired by anyone who is not authorized to do so by Apple.

As a former authorized Apple repairman, I totally disagree with Apple’s thinking here. And to be fair Apple is not the only one. Back in 2015 I wrote a few thoughts about what’s at stake

You may recall earlier this year when the United Nations charged a U.S.-led coalition with humanitarian law violations, due to airstrikes on a school that killed 150 civilians.

Basically U.S.-led coalition forces were formally called out because they “failed to take proper precautions” before launch of airstrikes.

Families were known for years to be seeking shelter from harm in that school. While the military said it feared militants were present, it instead killed innocent civilians and then failed to produce any evidence of an actual threat.

Russia was accused of having a similarly careless policy as the U.S.-led coalition, murdering civilians indiscriminately:

Pinheiro, commenting on the Russian strike, said that under international humanitarian law, using certain weapons in civilian areas automatically amounts to the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks because of the nature of the weapons used.

And three U.S.-led coalition strikes on a school near Raqqa in March 2017 killed 150 residents – roughly five times the toll acknowledged by the Pentagon, which said at the time that dozens of militants and not civilians were killed.

The U.N. investigators found no evidence that Islamic State fighters were at the school and said the U.S.-led coalition had violated international law by failing in its duty to protect displaced civilians known to be sheltered there since 2012.

The above tragedy and charges of humanitarian law violations now seems like foreshadowing. In today’s news the U.S. regime leader has called upon the military to begin firing indiscriminately into unarmed crowds of civilians:

…he wants the military to treat anyone doing that as if they are armed with a deadly weapon.

“When they throw rocks, consider it a rifle”

To be fair, this is an old talking point of extremist groups around the world who have long said whites only can survive if guns are used indiscriminately as a means to maintain white nationalist power over non-white civilians.

These extremist groups were upset recently when evidence collected about U.S. Border Patrol excessive use of force had led to reports showing that rocks and bottles rarely ever justify armed response.

Eight people have been killed by agents in rock throwing incidents since 2010, according to the ACLU. According the IG report, there were 185 rock assaults in the 2012 budget year, and agents responded with gunfire 12 percent of the time.

The studies were initiated, in part, because of cases like the Rojas death in 2013 when a large group of U.S. enforcement officers basically physically tortured a man in front of many witnesses, yet avoided any charges of wrongdoing. That case was settled last year with $1M paid to Rojas’ family due to Rojas’ inhumane treatment.

Naturally the outcome was “a government-commissioned internal review that recommended to end the practice of shooting people who throw rocks and bottles at agents”. And naturally the Border Patrol ignored the review.

That’s where politics as usual was sitting on a 12%-of-the-time issue that needed serious consideration. Only the white nationalists believed strongly in excessive use of force as a natural (god given, genetic) right. Others argued things like 12% meant they couldn’t rule out shooting in defense, or looked for ways to get the 12% number down to something else.

What seems to just have happened is the U.S. publicly declared gunfire should be used 100% of the time a civilian could be judged as hostile; 100% of the time that someone carrying something that looks like a rock or even just carrying a bottle, they should be targeted with lethal force.

Considering someone a target for a rifle when they carry anything that looks like a rock, is the language of…guess what? That is white nationalist policy.

It is a radical, extreme, abrupt change to U.S. policy to openly call for murdering foreign civilians. Nevermind the nuance of data/reports since Rojas’ death or the settlement, and the U.N. charges earlier this year. The latest news of the U.S. regime leader is that he is declaring himself a “nationalist” leader of the U.S. military who doesn’t care about indiscriminate civilian death.

“Trump’s ‘I’m a Nationalist’ comment will likely represent the biggest boon for white supremacist recruitment since the film Birth of a Nation glorified the Klan in 1915 and gained the KKK 4 million members by 1925,” tweeted reformed neo-Nazi Christian Picciolini.

What kind of nationalist wants to shoot unarmed civilians of foreign countries 100% of the time?

It’s fairly obvious the association, based on who has applauded loudest at his use of that term alongside extremist xenophobic doctrines

The effort to plant the seeds of white nationalism in the political mainstream, where they might blossom into pro-white political coalitions that appeal to a broader swath of Caucasian voters, will not be easy, according to the chairman of the American Nazi Party.

But Rocky Suhayda thinks there is one political figure who presents a “real opportunity” to lessen the load.

Who is it? Donald Trump

I mention all this mostly because it proves my earlier blog post true, that there is no way under the current regime that their brand new statement “US offensive cyberattacks will not target civilian infrastructure” can be true.

If a water treatment plant has rocks in or around it, or an energy plant is used to make bottles, what really prevents a “nationalist” leader from dictating cyberattacks commence regardless of humanitarian laws or logic?

This departure from logic is truly a dangerous turn away from what should be a carefully constructed decision-tree. Allowing someone to hold a rifle when they are told to see every rock as an imminent threat is a certain recipe for disaster.

It also has very important implications in terms of automation and big data technology such as driverless cars (urban missiles). Will the person working on an algorithm to control all the cars on the border of the U.S. identify anyone holding a bottle as an imminent threat to “nationalist” power?

Perhaps we also should consider how sending 7,000 soldiers and associated equipment to the border is to transfer lethal equipment to white nationalist terror cells, who more egregiously and readily want to violate humanitarian law, given how troops are preparing for militias stealing their gear.

There are many good counter-examples to this U.S. shift towards ignorance and highly insecure logical fallacies (again, the U.S. regime is claiming that anyone with a bottle is equivalent threat to an American soldier with a rifle, which is as stupid as it sounds).

To see what other models have been used, and should be explored in our immediate driverless future, look at historic discussions of grey areas, small percentages, tight timelines and attempts at precise targeting.

Here’s just one such exploration of avoiding putting targets on innocent civilians:

Tension was heightening. The minutes dragged on.

And then, five minutes before 5 o’clock, 25 minutes after the fighters took off, a phone jangled in Canary. It was the secure line that connected directly to Mossad headquarters. “Doubts have arisen,” said the voice on the line…

Per my earlier post about terror attacks under the current US regime, the BBC says the number this week has jumped to nine:

The device arrived at the Tribeca Grill in Manhattan early on Thursday local time, US media said, citing police.

Former Vice-President Joe Biden has also reportedly received packages.

If linked to previous incidents, this would be the ninth perceived critic of President Donald Trump to receive a suspected explosive device this week.

Update: An suspect has been arrested, according to NYT story with the byline “Van With Pro-Trump Stickers Seized”

Speaking on CNN on Friday, Mr. Clapper said he was not surprised that a device had been sent to him. He has been a frequent critic of President Trump, a similarity shared with everyone whose names have appeared on the packages discovered so far.

“This is definitely domestic terrorism,” Mr. Clapper said. “Anyone who has in any way been a critic, publicly been a critic of President Trump, needs to be on an extra alert.”

The regime leader meanwhile, in an attempt to condemn terrorism, instead lashed out again at his critics and denied having accountability for lashing out at his critics

“Funny how lowly rated CNN, and others, can criticize me at will, even blaming me for the current spate of Bombs and ridiculously comparing this to September 11th and the Oklahoma City bombing, yet when I criticize them they go wild and scream, ‘it’s just not Presidential!'”

This post title easily could be a new book cover. Catchy, no?

There is an interesting discussion over C4ISRNET (Media for the Intelligence Age Military) about US military training and plans to hack civilian infrastructure

Part of this discussion is the notion of a commander needs to dominate in what’s called gray space — space that is not owned by either friendly forces or the enemy — to seize certain objectives as part of their overall campaign. This could manifest itself in the seizing of an oil pumping station due to its importance on the national economy. In the future, Army leaders believe it won’t be enough to physically control the pumping station and surrounding territory, but forces must control the virtual network as well.

“What good is it to win the terrain if the enemy can simply by computer network turn off the pumping,” Wittstruck asked.

Ok, to be fair, they’re talking about preventing infrastructure being hacked remotely by an enemy. Still, you have to admit turnabout is common in planning exercises. Also, not sure why network gets modifiers here. First it’s a virtual network. Then it’s a computer network. People, if you control THE network, you get both virtual and computer domination.

Alternate title: Black VPC Squadron (Baa Baa Black VPC).

“They were a collection of misfits and screwballs who became the terrors of the network. They were known as the Black VPC”

News station WFSB is reporting that four attempted bomb attacks over three days have been thwarted by the Secret Service and others:

The bombs were found just two days after an explosive device was discovered in the mailbox of billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who frequently donates to liberal causes.

Official investigators told the Associated Press the attacks are linked. A DC law enforcement official told CNN the devices appear rudimentary but functional.

After the attack on Soros Tuesday, the following attacks happened Weds morning:

• Hillary Clinton
• Barack Obama
• Time Warner Center, home of CNN

The Secret Service statement (PDF) says two of the attacks were blocked because “routine mail screening procedures” that detects “potential explosive devices”. It does not mention processes that detected a bomb in the mail room of CNN.

The bomb attack at the New York residence of Soros has been described as hand-delivered.

…markings on the envelope were likely intended to make it appear as though the package was sent through the mail, though they believed it was not.

Related: “Trump links New York bomb attack to immigration debate”

“Today’s attempted mass murder attack in New York City … once again highlights the urgent need for Congress to enact legislative reforms to protect the American people,” Trump said in a statement.

[…]

It is not the first time that Trump has quickly seized on a terrorist attack, in this country or abroad, to argue for his … agenda. Yet the president’s reaction contrasts with his response after violence involving American nationals.

The hits keep coming against Facebook’s CSO, as details of his breaches expand dramatically. Here’s the screenshot forwarded to me by a concerned reader:

Apparently two weeks passed with fiddles playing while the vulnerability languished. This hints at an organization awash in staff and money unable to execute on safety. One could say it is the legacy of one man, Alex Stamos.

I’ve written about this quite a bit and maybe here I should add that this really is about managing security mindset at the top of the pyramid.

Mark Zuckerberg built not just a business, but a company culture with the fervor of a messianic sect

When the messiah doesn’t make customer privacy a priority, a CSO is collecting paychecks and getting rich while people suffer. It is like being a doctor for a cult leader who runs a hospital and doesn’t believe in soap, so you sit there watching germs spread among those you provide “care”, killing women who give birth.

That seems worse than just being bad at the job, because it implies knowing things aren’t getting any better yet staying on claiming things are fine, just fine.

So what comes next? Show me a cult leader who was able to recognize an external authority, and we might have clues to the answer.

Many people may have speculated that CEO of Facebook was traveling around meeting people in order to run for some political office. This overlooks the fact that he has no interest in quaint concepts of democracy or election. Do you see anything democratic in a Facebook management organization when black hires sit at zero percent?

Zuckerberg profits from a cult-like obsession with knowing everything about his followers in order to get their likes. He apparently sees little or no value in protecting his followers from harm. In reality he has been researching how his confession-like service would be modified to increase his control over users:

Christian publications interpreted Zuckerberg’s remarks in different ways; some said he was suggesting the social network should draw inspiration from the church, while others fretted he was envisioning a future where Facebook replaces the church. […]

“As I’ve traveled around and learned about different places, one theme is clear: Every great community has great leaders,” he said.

“Think about it. A church doesn’t just come together. It has a pastor who cares for the well-being of their congregation, makes sure they have food and shelter.”

Food and shelter. Is there a pastor who cares for privacy?

And so it came to pass that in every town where the CEO of Facebook visited, he went inside their religious centers looking for ways to convert followers of others to his own sect.

These are not the actions of a man who is thinking about things like granting privacy to people. Safety of his flock in terms of privacy remains an open question, but at least the ruse of security was forced out by regulators.