DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement: Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Practices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement: Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Practices DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS’ RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement: Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Practices STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, presents concrete policy proposals on the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement. These proposals are driven by a comparative examination of the legal frameworks for hacking by law enforcement across six EU Member States and three non-EU countries, in combination with analyses of the international and EU-level debates on the topic and the EU legal basis for intervention in the field. PE 583.137 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Research Administrator Responsible Kristiina MILT Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHORS Mirja GUTHEIL, Optimity Advisors Quentin LIGER, Optimity Advisors Aurélie HEETMAN, Optimity Advisors James EAGER, Optimity Advisors Max CRAWFORD, Optimity Advisors With the support of Professor Bert-Jaap KOOPS and Ivan SKORVÁNEK of the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT) at Tilburg University; Carly NYST, independent expert; Gerben KLEIN BALTINK, Chairman of the Dutch Internet Standards Platform; and Professor Catherine CRUMP, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and Acting Director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, University of California. LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Manuscript completed in March 2017 © European Union, 2017 This document is available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement _________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS 1.1. Scope of the study 15 1.2. Study methodology 15 1.3. Structure of the Report 17 2.1. Encryption as an investigative barrier 18 2.2. Fundamental rights considerations 21 2.3. Security of the internet and ICTs 25 2.4. Jurisdictional challenges 27 2.5. Regulation of hacking tools 30 3.1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters 34 3.2. Privacy and data protection 36 4.1. Legal frameworks and context 41 4.2. Provisions of the legal framework 47 4.3. Fundamental rights considerations 54 4.4. Technical means used by law enforcement 58 4.5. Security and intelligence services: legal framework 61 France Country Report 72 Germany Country Report 77 Italy Country Report 84 Netherlands Country Report 90 3 Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs Poland Country Report 97 United Kingdom Country Report 103 Australia Country Report 111 Israel Country Report 117 United States Country Report 121 4 Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABW Internal Security Agency (Poland) ACLU American Civil Liberties Union AIVD General Intelligence & Security Service (the Netherlands) BKAG Federal Criminal Police Act (Germany) CALEA US Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 1994 CCITÜ Competence Centre for Information Technological Surveillance (Germany) CCPCJ UN Commission for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice CoE Council of Europe DUCG Dual-Use Coordination Group EC3 European Cybercrime Centre – Europol ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECPA Electronic Communications Act (US) EDPS European Data Protection Supervisor EFF Electronic Frontier Foundation ENISA European Union Agency for Network and Information Security EWG Encryption Working Group (US) FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation (US) FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights GDPR General Data Protection Regulation ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICT Information and Communications Technology 5 Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs Interpol International Criminal Police Organisation IoT Internet of Things IP Internet Protocol IT Information Technology LIBE European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Committee Affairs MIVD Military Intelligence & Security Service (the Netherlands) NCA National Crime Agency (UK) NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIT Network Investigative Technique NSA National Security Agency (US) SCA Stored Communications Act (US) STEG Surveillance Technology Expert Group StPO Code of Criminal Procedure (Germany) TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Tor The Onion Router UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UN United Nations UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime VEP Vulnerability Equities Process VPN Virtual Private Networks ZITiS Central Office for Information in the Security Sphere (Germany) 6 Legal Frameworks for Hacking by Law Enforcement LIST OF BOXES Box 1: Key recommendations from the UN General Assembly’s 2016 resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. 23 Box 2: National-level debates on fundamental rights. 24 Box 3: Examples of the use of hacking by law enforcement in the US and the jurisdictional challenges. 29 Box 4: Non-EU countries: Use of ‘grey area’ legal provisions. 43 Box 5: Member State statements on encryption as an investigative barrier. 45 Box 6: Non-EU countries: Terrorism as a driver of hacking by law enforcement 46 Box 7: Conditions for the lawful restriction of the right to privacy. 47 Box 8: Select good practice elements of the legislative provisions for hacking by law enforcement. 58 Box 9: Profile of the Vault7 publication of reportedly CIA documents. 62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Countries to which FinFisher has been sold. 32 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Rationale for selected EU Member States 16 Table 2: Current practices of cooperation between LEAs and service providers 27 Table 3: Specific legal provisions for law enforcement hacking in four Member States. 42 Table 4: Specific legislative proposals tabled in Italy and the Netherlands regarding hacking by law enforcement. 44 Table 5: Legal provisions for judicial authorisation of hacking by law enforcement 48 Table 6: Non-EU countries: Legal provisions for judicial authorisation of hacking by law enforcement 49 Table 7: Examples of ex-ante conditions for authorisation of hacking practices. 50 Table 8: Member State approaches to ex-post supervision and oversight of hacking by law enforcement. 53 Table 9: Selected criticisms of Member State legal provisions for the use of hacking techniques by law enforcement agencies. 56 Table 10: Additional legislative specificity regarding hacking techniques. 59 Table 11: Examples of in-house development of expertise and tools. 60 Table 12: Difference in capabilities between the security and intelligence services and law enforcement. 63 Table 13: Key findings on Member State legal frameworks for surveillance by FRA. 64 Table 14: Risks presented by law enforcement use of hacking techniques. 66 Table 15: Legal implementation of ECtHR minimum safeguards in Germany 81 7 Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hacking by law enforcement is a relatively new phenomenon within the framework of the longstanding public policy problem of balancing security and privacy. On the one hand, law enforcement agencies assert that the use of hacking techniques brings security, stating that it represents a part of the solution to the law enforcement challenge of encryption and ‘Going Dark’ without systematically weakening encryption through the introduction of ‘backdoors’ or similar techniques. On the other hand, civil society actors argue that hacking is extremely invasive and significantly restricts the fundamental right to privacy. Furthermore, the use of hacking practices pits security against cybersecurity, as the exploitation of cybersecurity vulnerabilities to provide law enforcement with access to certain data can have significant implications for the security of the internet. Against this backdrop, the present study provides the LIBE Committee with relevant, actionable insight into the legal frameworks and practices for hacking by law enforcement. Firstly, the study examines the international and EU-level debates on the topic of hacking by law enforcement (Chapter 2), before analysing the possible legal bases for EU intervention in the field (Chapter 3). These chapters set the scene for the primary focus of the study: the comparative analysis of legal frameworks and practices for hacking
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment
    S E C R E T //NOFORN I I 20320619 DEPARTMENTOF DEFENSE HEADQUARTERS,JOINT TASK FORCEGUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION,GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA APO AE 09350 JTF-GTMO-CDR 19June 2007 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander,United StatesSouthem Command. 3511 NW 9lst Avenue. Miami,FL33172. SUBJECT: Recommendationfor ContinuedDetention Under DoD Control (CD) for GuantanamoDetainee, ISN: US9SA-000079DP(S) JTF-GTMO DetaineeAssessment 1. (S//NF) Personal Information: o JDIMSAIDRC ReferenceName: FahedA al-Harasi o Aliases and Current/True Name: Fahd Atiyah Hamza Hamid al-Harazi" Hassanal-Makki. FahedFahad" Khalid. Abu Hassan. al-Sharif. Abu Barak o Placeof Birth: Mecca. SaudiArabia (SA) o Date of Birth: 18 November 1978 o Citizenship: SaudiArabia o InternmentSerial Number (ISN): US9SA-000079DP 2. (U//T'OUO) Health: Detaineeis in good health. 3. (S//NF) JTF-GTMO Assessment: a. (S) Recommendation: JTF-GTMO recommendsthis detaineefor ContinuedDetention Under DoD Control (CD). JTF-GTMO previouslyassessed detainee for Continued Detentionwith TransferLanguage on 26May 2006. b. (S//NF) Executive Summary: Detaineeis reportedto be a memberof al-Qaida. He was identified as having attendedmilitant training and was an instructor at the al-Qaida al- Faruq Training Camp. Detaineewas in Afghanistan (AF) since 1999 during which he is assessedto have participated in hostilities againstUS and Coalition forces as a member of Classifiedby: MultipleSources REASON:E.O. 12958, AS AMENDED,Section 1.4(C) Declassi$on:20320619 S E C R E T //NOFORN I I 20320619 S E C R E T // NOFORN I I 20320619 JTF-GTMO.CDR SUBJECT: Recommendationfor ContinuedDetention Under DoD Control (CD) for GuantanamoDetainee, ISN: US9SA-000079DP(S) UsamaBin Laden's (UBL) 55th Arab Brigade.l Detainee'sname and aliaswere listed in recovereddocuments associated with al-Qaida, and the Saudi Ministry of Interior General Directorate of Investigations(Mabahith) identified him as a high priority detainee.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Russia's Intelligence Agencies
    EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN BRIEF POLICY RELATIONS ecfr.eu PUTIN’S HYDRA: INSIDE RUSSIA’S INTELLIGENCE SERVICES Mark Galeotti For his birthday in 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin was treated to an exhibition of faux Greek friezes showing SUMMARY him in the guise of Hercules. In one, he was slaying the • Russia’s intelligence agencies are engaged in an “hydra of sanctions”.1 active and aggressive campaign in support of the Kremlin’s wider geopolitical agenda. The image of the hydra – a voracious and vicious multi- headed beast, guided by a single mind, and which grows • As well as espionage, Moscow’s “special services” new heads as soon as one is lopped off – crops up frequently conduct active measures aimed at subverting in discussions of Russia’s intelligence and security services. and destabilising European governments, Murdered dissident Alexander Litvinenko and his co-author operations in support of Russian economic Yuri Felshtinsky wrote of the way “the old KGB, like some interests, and attacks on political enemies. multi-headed hydra, split into four new structures” after 1991.2 More recently, a British counterintelligence officer • Moscow has developed an array of overlapping described Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) as and competitive security and spy services. The a hydra because of the way that, for every plot foiled or aim is to encourage risk-taking and multiple operative expelled, more quickly appear. sources, but it also leads to turf wars and a tendency to play to Kremlin prejudices. The West finds itself in a new “hot peace” in which many consider Russia not just as an irritant or challenge, but • While much useful intelligence is collected, as an outright threat.
    [Show full text]
  • CIA Best Practices in Counterinsurgency
    CIA Best Practices in Counterinsurgency WikiLeaks release: December 18, 2014 Keywords: CIA, counterinsurgency, HVT, HVD, Afghanistan, Algeria, Colombia, Iraq, Israel, Peru, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Libya, Pakistan, Thailand,HAMAS, FARC, PULO, AQI, FLN, IRA, PLO, LTTE, al-Qa‘ida, Taliban, drone, assassination Restraint: SECRET//NOFORN (no foreign nationals) Title: Best Practices in Counterinsurgency: Making High-Value Targeting Operations an Effective Counterinsurgency Tool Date: July 07, 2009 Organisation: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Author: CIA Office of Transnational Issues; Conflict, Governance, and Society Group Link: http://wikileaks.org/cia-hvt-counterinsurgency Pages: 21 Description This is a secret CIA document assessing high-value targeting (HVT) programs world-wide for their impact on insurgencies. The document is classified SECRET//NOFORN (no foreign nationals) and is for internal use to review the positive and negative implications of targeted assassinations on these groups for the strength of the group post the attack. The document assesses attacks on insurgent groups by the United States and other countries within Afghanistan, Algeria, Colombia, Iraq, Israel, Peru, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Libya, Pakistan and Thailand. The document, which is "pro-assassination", was completed in July 2009 and coincides with the first year of the Obama administration and Leon Panetta's directorship of the CIA during which the United States very significantly increased its CIA assassination program at the
    [Show full text]
  • Wikileaks and the Institutional Framework for National Security Disclosures
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL PATRICIA L. BELLIA WikiLeaks and the Institutional Framework for National Security Disclosures ABSTRACT. WikiLeaks' successive disclosures of classified U.S. documents throughout 2010 and 2011 invite comparison to publishers' decisions forty years ago to release portions of the Pentagon Papers, the classified analytic history of U.S. policy in Vietnam. The analogy is a powerful weapon for WikiLeaks' defenders. The Supreme Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers case signaled that the task of weighing whether to publicly disclose leaked national security information would fall to publishers, not the executive or the courts, at least in the absence of an exceedingly grave threat of harm. The lessons of the PentagonPapers case for WikiLeaks, however, are more complicated than they may first appear. The Court's per curiam opinion masks areas of substantial disagreement as well as a number of shared assumptions among the Court's members. Specifically, the Pentagon Papers case reflects an institutional framework for downstream disclosure of leaked national security information, under which publishers within the reach of U.S. law would weigh the potential harms and benefits of disclosure against the backdrop of potential criminal penalties and recognized journalistic norms. The WikiLeaks disclosures show the instability of this framework by revealing new challenges for controlling the downstream disclosure of leaked information and the corresponding likelihood of "unintermediated" disclosure by an insider; the risks of non-media intermediaries attempting to curtail such disclosures, in response to government pressure or otherwise; and the pressing need to prevent and respond to leaks at the source. AUTHOR.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Offensive Capabilities
    GCHQ and UK Mass Surveillance Chapter 5 5 Beyond signals intelligence: Offensive capabilities 5.1 Introduction Documents released by German magazine Der Spiegel provide a much richer picture of the offensive activities of the NSA and its allies, including the UK’s GCHQ.i The global surveillance infrastructure and hacking tools described in the previous chapters are not only used for obtaining information to be fed into intelligence reports and tracking terrorists. The agencies are also developing cyber-warfare capabilities, with the NSA taking the lead within the US armed forces. This militarisation of the internet saw U.S. intelligence services carried out 231 offensive cyber-operations in 2011ii. The UK's National Strategic Defence and Security Review from 2010 made hostile attacks upon UK cyberspace a major priorityiii. It is fair to assume that many countries are following suit and building cyber-warfare capabilities. Der Spiegel terms the development of these aggressive hacking tools as Digital Weapons. In their view D weapons which should join the ABC (Atomic, Biological and Chemical) weapons of the 20th century because of their indiscriminate nature. Here lies a fundamental problem. The modern world with connected global communications networks means that non-state actors such as civilians and businesses are now affected by the agencies’ activities much more frequently than before. The internet is used by everyone – cyberspace is mainly a civilian space – and the opportunity for collateral damage is huge. The papers leaked to Der Spiegel appear to show that signal agencies have little regard for the security and wellbeing of anyone who gets caught in the path of their operations.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use Encryption and Privacy Tools to Evade Corporate Espionage
    How to use Encryption and Privacy Tools to Evade Corporate Espionage An ICIT White Paper Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology August 2015 NOTICE: The recommendations contained in this white paper are not intended as standards for federal agencies or the legislative community, nor as replacements for enterprise-wide security strategies, frameworks and technologies. This white paper is written primarily for individuals (i.e. lawyers, CEOs, investment bankers, etc.) who are high risk targets of corporate espionage attacks. The information contained within this briefing is to be used for legal purposes only. ICIT does not condone the application of these strategies for illegal activity. Before using any of these strategies the reader is advised to consult an encryption professional. ICIT shall not be liable for the outcomes of any of the applications used by the reader that are mentioned in this brief. This document is for information purposes only. It is imperative that the reader hires skilled professionals for their cybersecurity needs. The Institute is available to provide encryption and privacy training to protect your organization’s sensitive data. To learn more about this offering, contact information can be found on page 41 of this brief. Not long ago it was speculated that the leading world economic and political powers were engaged in a cyber arms race; that the world is witnessing a cyber resource buildup of Cold War proportions. The implied threat in that assessment is close, but it misses the mark by at least half. The threat is much greater than you can imagine. We have passed the escalation phase and have engaged directly into full confrontation in the cyberwar.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Surveillance
    Mass Surveillance Mass Surveillance What are the risks for the citizens and the opportunities for the European Information Society? What are the possible mitigation strategies? Part 1 - Risks and opportunities raised by the current generation of network services and applications Study IP/G/STOA/FWC-2013-1/LOT 9/C5/SC1 January 2015 PE 527.409 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment The STOA project “Mass Surveillance Part 1 – Risks, Opportunities and Mitigation Strategies” was carried out by TECNALIA Research and Investigation in Spain. AUTHORS Arkaitz Gamino Garcia Concepción Cortes Velasco Eider Iturbe Zamalloa Erkuden Rios Velasco Iñaki Eguía Elejabarrieta Javier Herrera Lotero Jason Mansell (Linguistic Review) José Javier Larrañeta Ibañez Stefan Schuster (Editor) The authors acknowledge and would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this report: Prof. Nigel Smart, University of Bristol; Matteo E. Bonfanti PhD, Research Fellow in International Law and Security, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa; Prof. Fred Piper, University of London; Caspar Bowden, independent privacy researcher; Maria Pilar Torres Bruna, Head of Cybersecurity, Everis Aerospace, Defense and Security; Prof. Kenny Paterson, University of London; Agustín Martin and Luis Hernández Encinas, Tenured Scientists, Department of Information Processing and Cryptography (Cryptology and Information Security Group), CSIC; Alessandro Zanasi, Zanasi & Partners; Fernando Acero, Expert on Open Source Software; Luigi Coppolino,Università degli Studi di Napoli; Marcello Antonucci, EZNESS srl; Rachel Oldroyd, Managing Editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Peter Kruse, Founder of CSIS Security Group A/S; Ryan Gallagher, investigative Reporter of The Intercept; Capitán Alberto Redondo, Guardia Civil; Prof. Bart Preneel, KU Leuven; Raoul Chiesa, Security Brokers SCpA, CyberDefcon Ltd.; Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Polish Journal for American Studies Yearbook of the Polish Association for American Studies
    Polish Journal for American Studies Yearbook of the Polish Association for American Studies Vol. 14 (Spring 2020) INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW Polish Journal for American Studies Yearbook of the Polish Association for American Studies Vol. 14 (Spring 2020) Warsaw 2020 MANAGING EDITOR Marek Paryż EDITORIAL BOARD Justyna Fruzińska, Izabella Kimak, Mirosław Miernik, Łukasz Muniowski, Jacek Partyka, Paweł Stachura ADVISORY BOARD Andrzej Dakowski, Jerzy Durczak, Joanna Durczak, Andrew S. Gross, Andrea O’Reilly Herrera, Jerzy Kutnik, John R. Leo, Zbigniew Lewicki, Eliud Martínez, Elżbieta Oleksy, Agata Preis-Smith, Tadeusz Rachwał, Agnieszka Salska, Tadeusz Sławek, Marek Wilczyński REVIEWERS Ewa Antoszek, Edyta Frelik, Elżbieta Klimek-Dominiak, Zofia Kolbuszewska, Tadeusz Pióro, Elżbieta Rokosz-Piejko, Małgorzata Rutkowska, Stefan Schubert, Joanna Ziarkowska TYPESETTING AND COVER DESIGN Miłosz Mierzyński COVER IMAGE Jerzy Durczak, “Vegas Options” from the series “Las Vegas.” By permission. www.flickr/photos/jurek_durczak/ ISSN 1733-9154 eISSN 2544-8781 Publisher Polish Association for American Studies Al. Niepodległości 22 02-653 Warsaw paas.org.pl Nakład 110 egz. Wersją pierwotną Czasopisma jest wersja drukowana. Printed by Sowa – Druk na życzenie phone: +48 22 431 81 40; www.sowadruk.pl Table of Contents ARTICLES Justyna Włodarczyk Beyond Bizarre: Nature, Culture and the Spectacular Failure of B.F. Skinner’s Pigeon-Guided Missiles .......................................................................... 5 Małgorzata Olsza Feminist (and/as) Alternative Media Practices in Women’s Underground Comix in the 1970s ................................................................ 19 Arkadiusz Misztal Dream Time, Modality, and Counterfactual Imagination in Thomas Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon ............................................................................... 37 Ewelina Bańka Walking with the Invisible: The Politics of Border Crossing in Luis Alberto Urrea’s The Devil’s Highway: A True Story .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download the PDF File
    S E C RE T //NOFORN I I 20310825 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO GUANTANAMO BAY, CI,IBA APO AE 09360 JTF-GTMO-CC 25 August2006 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander,United StatesSouthern Command, 3511 NW 9lst Avenue. Miami. FL33172 SUBJECT: Recommendationfor Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD) for GuantanamoDetainee, ISN: US9SA-000230DP(S) JTF-GTMODetainee Assessment 1. (S/NF) PersonalInformation: o JDIMSAIDRC ReferenceName: Hamud Dakhil Hamud o Aliases and Current/True Name: Talut al-Jeddawi. Humud Dakhil Humud Said al-Jadani.Hamud Sultan.Nag Mohammad. Safwan the Afghan o Placeof Birth: Jeddah.Saudi Arabia (SA) o Dateof Birth: 22May 1973 o Citizenship: SaudiArabia o InternmentSerial Number (ISN): US9SA-000230DP 2. (FOUO) Health: Detaineeis in goodhealth. 3. (S//NF) JTF-GTMOAssessment: a. (S) Recommendation: JTF-GTMOrecommends this detaineefor Continued DetentionUnder DoD Control(CD). JTF-GTMOpreviously assessed detainee as Continued DetentionUnder DoD Control(CD) on 5 September2005. b. (S/NF) Executive Summary: Detaineeis assessedto be a memberof al-Qaidawith an extensivehistory of militantjihad. Detaineeis an admittedleader of armedfighters in ToraBora duringhostilities against US forcesand associated with severalsenior al-Qaida members.He receivedbasic and advanced training in Chechnyaand Afghanistan (AF) CLASSIFIEDBY: MULTIPLESOURCES REASON:E.O. 12958 SECTION 1.5(C) DECLASSIFYON: 203108 1 I S E C RE T // NOFORNI I 20310825 S E C R E T // NOFORNI I 20310825 JTF-GTMO-CC SUBJECT:Recommendation for ContinuedDetention Under DoD Control(CD) for GuantanamoDetainee, ISN: US9SA-000230DP (S) includingtraining on smallarns, explosives,mortars, and anti-aircraft weaponry. JTF- GTMO determinedthis detaineeto be: o A HIGH risk, as he is likely to posea threatto the US, its interestsand allies.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Depths of the Net by Sue Halpern | the New York Review Of
    Font Size: A A A In the Depths of the Net Sue Halpern OCTOBER 8, 2015 ISSUE The Dark Net: Inside The Digital Underworld by Jamie Bartlett Melville House, 308 pp, $27.95 freeross.org Ross Ulbricht, who was recently sentenced to life in prison for running the illegal dark-Net marketplace Silk Road Early this year, a robot in Switzerland purchased ten tablets of the illegal drug MDMA, better known as “ecstasy,” from an online marketplace and had them delivered through the postal service to a gallery in St. Gallen where the robot was then set up. The drug buy was part of an installation called “Random Darknet Shopper,” which was meant to show what could be obtained on the “dark” side of the Internet. In addition to ecstasy, the robot also bought a baseball cap with a secret camera, a pair of knock-off Diesel jeans, and a Hungarian passport, among other things. Passports stolen and forged, heroin, crack cocaine, semiautomatic weapons, people who can be hired to use those weapons, computer viruses, and child pornography—especially child pornography—are all easily obtained in the shaded corners of the Internet. For example, in the interest of research, Jamie Bartlett—the author of The Dark Net: Inside the Digital Underworld, a picturesque tour of this disquieting netherworld—successfully bought a small amount of marijuana from a dark-Net site; anyone hoping to emulate him will find that the biggest dilemma will be with which seller—there are scores—to do business. My own forays to the dark Net include visits to sites offering counterfeit drivers’ licenses, methamphetamine, a template for a US twenty-dollar bill, files to make a 3D-printed gun, and books describing how to receive illegal goods in the mail without getting caught.
    [Show full text]
  • The Qanon Conspiracy
    THE QANON CONSPIRACY: Destroying Families, Dividing Communities, Undermining Democracy THE QANON CONSPIRACY: PRESENTED BY Destroying Families, Dividing Communities, Undermining Democracy NETWORK CONTAGION RESEARCH INSTITUTE POLARIZATION AND EXTREMISM RESEARCH POWERED BY (NCRI) INNOVATION LAB (PERIL) Alex Goldenberg Brian Hughes Lead Intelligence Analyst, The Network Contagion Research Institute Caleb Cain Congressman Denver Riggleman Meili Criezis Jason Baumgartner Kesa White The Network Contagion Research Institute Cynthia Miller-Idriss Lea Marchl Alexander Reid-Ross Joel Finkelstein Director, The Network Contagion Research Institute Senior Research Fellow, Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, Rutgers University SPECIAL THANKS TO THE PERIL QANON ADVISORY BOARD Jaclyn Fox Sarah Hightower Douglas Rushkoff Linda Schegel THE QANON CONSPIRACY ● A CONTAGION AND IDEOLOGY REPORT FOREWORD “A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good just because it’s accepted by the majority.” –Booker T. Washington As a GOP Congressman, I have been uniquely positioned to experience a tumultuous two years on Capitol Hill. I voted to end the longest government shut down in history, was on the floor during impeachment, read the Mueller Report, governed during the COVID-19 pandemic, officiated a same-sex wedding (first sitting GOP congressman to do so), and eventually became the only Republican Congressman to speak out on the floor against the encroaching and insidious digital virus of conspiracy theories related to QAnon. Certainly, I can list the various theories that nest under the QAnon banner. Democrats participate in a deep state cabal as Satan worshiping pedophiles and harvesting adrenochrome from children. President-Elect Joe Biden ordered the killing of Seal Team 6.
    [Show full text]