FBI

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Circus Rings
March 31, 2024

ARGUMENTS FOR TAKING THE BACK ROADS: CIRCUS WINTER CAMP [2019]

Waking up to the sound of gunfire isn’t nearly the rarity that it should be. Most of the time, the shots are fairly distant, over a quarter of a mile away. Last night, they were a lot closer, no more than a couple of blocks to our East. A single shot. No follow-up. I thought about going out to check before calling the police, but those are the kinds of actions that can get you killed. I stayed in bed and called no one. By the time cops arrived, no one was going to be around. This was around 2:30 this morning.

The dogs, sensing that spring break is over, want to go out at 5:45 this morning. As we stepped out into the dark between rain showers, the familiar “berries and cherries” of police lights could be seen at the entrance to our subdivision. A few years ago the dogs would have been straining at the fence to see what had happened. The lights have become so common in the neighborhood that the dogs ignore them now. Only the sound of sirens irritates them.

Coming back inside to avoid the rain, I turned on the local news. SEVEN teenagers between the ages of 12-17 were shot downtown around 11:30 last night. While all the victims are in stable condition, no suspects have been named. Local police are considering the possibility that there was more than one gun involved. This is the third weekend in a row with mass shootings. I find it interesting how this coincides with major sporting events in town all three weekends, bringing out a higher number of people than IMPD seems capable of policing.

Is this merely a local problem? Of course not. The law enforcement circus is a national disgrace. Opening this morning’s Washington Post, I see a headline that disturbs me deeply: The FBI is visiting people because of their social media. Every day. The person in question this time was a Stillwater, Oklahoma resident, Rolla Abdeljawad, who had the foresight to record the encounter. The “FBI” agents refused to identify themselves. Refused to show her their badges. Told the Muslim woman, “Facebook gave us a couple screenshots of your accounts.” The FBI refused to comment. Ms. Abdeljawad has been vocally pro-Gaza in her recent posts. No one is investigating whether the three men were real FBI agents or anti-Muslim troublemakers.

Welcome to the circus. No one’s responsible for their actions, especially if they’re drunk. No one’s responsible for their children running around downtown at 11:30 at night (even if they are leaving a sporting event). No one’s responsible for the harassment of non-Christians. It’s all one big, wild, raucous, many-ringed demonstration of carelessness, from sea to shining sea. Flack vests not included.

Continue Reading

News & Comment  /  Photography
Any Given Tuesday: A Mini Gallery
March 21, 2017
charles i. letbetter - any given tuesday

Monday’s news fuels Tuesday’s fallout

charles i. letbetter - any given tuesday

 

I first started noticing the pattern some 30 years ago and it’s only become more relevant with passing time. A lot of important decisions and statements are made on Mondays. Yesterday was a good example. Just consider some of the revelations made yesterday:

  • The FBI is investigating Russia’s involvement in last year’s election and to what degree the president’s people were involved.
  • The US is prohibiting electronics larger than a cell phone on flights inbound to the US from eight countries, but failed to provide those countries with details.
  • The Secretary of State is snubbing NATO to meet with China and Russia. Fraternizing with the enemy, anyone?
  • North Korea tested a rocket engine that could fuel ICBMs and the US is considering sanctions.
  • Google is overhauling its policies and hiring more people to make sure client ads don’t appear next to Breitbart and other offensive content.

All of those issues are important in one way or another and now that they’ve been announced, the fallout starts. Expect it to be a rough day at the State Department. Firing decisions are often made on Tuesday (though they may not be announced until Friday). Don’t be surprised to see some bankruptcy and store closing announcements today.  It’s going to be rough for a lot of people.

Then, there are the things one doesn’t read about in the newspaper. A dear friend became a widow at the age of 49 yesterday thanks to her husband’s heroin addiction. Another friend who had relocated across the country for a better job lost that job yesterday, less than six months after the move. There are surgeries and complications, illnesses evading diagnosis, and physical problems threatening to end careers.

Tuesdays suck.

So, though we don’t have a lot of time to just sit and look at pictures, we do have some pictures, re-processed with bolder tones. These photos won’t solve anyone’s problems. However, our hope is they will at least provide a moment’s respite from all the stress and anxiety that come with any given Tuesday. Click on a thumbnail to view the whole slide show. We’ll worry more about the news stuff tomorrow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11073″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  science
The Internet Of Things Isn’t Ready For Prime Time
December 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - the internet of things isn't ready for prime time

Having everything in your life connected could be great or could be a giant disaster

 

charles i. letbetter - the internet of things isn't ready for prime time

Personal assistants sound like so much fun, don’t they? At least, if you believe the commercials they do.

“Siri, find me a Japanese restaurant in Riyadh.”

“Alexa, turn down the lights and turn up the music.”

“Google, what’s theweather forecast for her heart?” (Stormy, apparently, if one is married to a popular country musician.)

Chances are pretty high by now that you’ve seen the commercial. Google and Amazon are both being especially aggressive this season in selling various styles of their different personal assistant devices. The commercials do a very good job of showing the positive side of having as much of your life plugged in as possible. Unlocking the door so you don’t have to fumble for keys in the rain. Checking how to say “hello” in an obscure language just before meeting a guest from a foreign country. Reading your grandmother’s cookie recipe to you while you’re hands are covered with flour. There’s even a refrigerator whose contents you can check while at the grocery store. All of that sounds absolutely wonderful, doesn’t it?

Welcome to the Internet of Things, a growing atmosphere where, increasingly, every part of our lives, from what’s in our closet to the temperature setting on a slow cooker, are potentially available for control either by voice command or an app on your phone. Everything is right there, waiting for you to tell it what to do, or perhaps following previous instructions. Welcome to the future. The world looks extremely comfortable from this viewpoint.

Wait, though. Before you introduce Alexa or Cortana or Google to every aspect of your home, you might want to stop and think about the consequences.

 

Only In The Movies

charles i. letbetter - the internet of things isn't ready for prime time

Well, television, actually. The show is CBS’s political drama, Madame Secretary, wherein actress Tea Leoni plays Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord. One of the subplots this season came with the theft of her son’s laptop. There were threats and some suspicious activity here and there, resulting in increased security for the family.

Their real vulnerability was exposed, however, when a hacker takes over all the “smart” appliances in their home, turning them all off and on at random. The scene was almost comical as the ice maker in the refrigerator kept spitting ice at family members. For the family, however, the event was terrifying. They quickly became aware of the fact that the Internet of Things isn’t quite ready for prime time yet. There are still a number of bugs to be worked out before the system can be trusted with the finer points of our lives.

How close was the episode to reality? Probably closer than most of us would consider comfortable. While the ice throwing might have been a bit of a stretch, the rest of that scene is pretty accurate. There are a number of “smart” devices available on the market now that allow those devices to be controlled remotely, usually through an app on your phone. While the ice throwing part might be a bit of a stretch, the rest is entirely possible. Even “dumb” appliances can be made “smart” by plugging them into a connected outlet. If you have something that runs on electricity, it can, in theory at least, be connected to the Internet.

While that might sound convenient, the problem is that the Internet is not a terribly safe place to store things that are valuable.  No matter how secure you might think the cloud is, there is someone out there right now trying to hack it.

 

Warning from the FBI

charles i. letbetter - the internet of things isn't ready for prime time

The dangers that come with the personal assistants and the Internet of Things are inherent to the beast. Everyone knows about them. The question is how to mitigate those risks down to reasonable levels. Last September, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a rather lengthy Public Service Announcement addressing some of the more urgent and frequent security concerns. Here’s an excerpt from that statement.

The main IoT risks include:

  • An exploitation of the Universal Plug and Play protocol (UPnP) to gain access to many IoT devices. The UPnP describes the process when a device remotely connects and communicates on a network automatically without authentication. UPnP is designed to self-configure when attached to an IP address, making it vulnerable to exploitation. Cyber actors can change the configuration, and run commands on the devices, potentially enabling the devices to harvest sensitive information or conduct attacks against homes and businesses, or engage in digital eavesdropping;
  • An exploitation of default passwords to send malicious and spam e-mails, or steal personally identifiable or credit card information;
  • Compromising the IoT device to cause physical harm;
  • Overloading the devices to render the device inoperable;
  • Interfering with business transactions.

A couple of things here are worth noting immediately. Anything that is “universal” is universally at risk. That means that the device is open to accepting information from any number of potential sources, making it especially easy for hackers to access the system. Anything with a “default” password is vulnerable even before it’s shipped. Passwords that provide access to multiple objects in your home places your whole family at risk.   While security has improved since these guidelines were released, there is still a very high probability that putting one’s home online is putting one’s home at risk.

Even systems you thought were safe can be risky. Remember that huge Target hack that happened last year? The hackers were able to get into the system by using credentials stolen from an HVAC worker. That’s right, Target’s HVAC is online. Not only is it online, when the hack occurred, none of the system’s default passwords had been changed. For hackers to break into the entire system was as easy as possible.

We should also probably mention that anything app controlled can be easily blocked, either by a person or by one’s ISP or by another app. There are myriad ways in which access to your control app could be blocked.

 

Improvement still requires caution

charles i. letbetter - the internet of things isn't ready for prime time

A lot has improved since the FBI’s warning came out last year. With each new iteration of a product, developers are getting infinitely better at building security into their devices. However, it is going to take a while before all connected services are totally safe.

A 2014 article from digital security provider TrendMicro contains some very valuable advice if you want to make your home both smart and safe.

  • Ensure that smart devices are secure – (ex: Username/password)
  • Regularly change smart device access credentials
  • Check/replace batteries in devices and sensors
  • Diagnose and Resolve device operational issues
  • Monitor device manufacturer notifications (ex: web sites, feeds, e-mail, devices) for notifications of device operational issues and firmware updates
  • Perform firmware updates, as required to ensure continued device security and operation
  • Perform device management app updates on smart phones/tablets of family members
  • Reconfigure existing devices to grant additional access by other family members
  • Identify new household convenience scenarios and configure/test devices accordingly
  • Assist other members of the household with smart device related issues

Those are very important consideration to remember before making anything in your home accessible through the Internet.

I was talking with a friend yesterday about this very topic and she raised the fear of losing her entire music collection. I countered that perhaps even worse than losing the collection would be having it corrupted. Imagine saying, “Hey Alexa, play Zeppelin.” and what you get is a familiar-sounding dinosaur singing, “I love you, you love me …” That is exactly the kind of horror to which we make ourselves available.

Not everything about the Internet of Things is bad, mind you. The potential for both convenience and learning are significant (Alexa, what sound does a whale make?). However, if we’re going to put more and more of our lives online, we have to understand the risks and, perhaps most importantly, be willing to accept the consequences.

Think before you connect yourself or someone else this holiday season.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Words You Don’t Own
February 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - words you don't own

Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.—Buddha

 

charles i. letbetter - words you don't own

Once words leave your mouth, or your fingers, the matter of who owns them becomes questionable and often it isn’t you.

I was amused recently when the driver of a car that was passing us could be seen gesturing rather vehemently while she talked, neither hand actually on the steering wheel as she passed. She was deep in conversation and obviously very passionate about the topic. While the visual observance was humorous, I was also just a bit concerned that neither of her hands were on the wheel as she zipped down the rather crowded street. The whole thing made me curious as to what she might be discussing, but that’s none of my business, right?

There is audio going viral of a certain well-known rapper who recently appeared on the television program Saturday Night Live. The rapper, whose ego is matched only by his narcissism, can be heard claiming that he is fifty percent more influential than any other person and then instructing those within immediate hearing distance, “don’t fuck with me!” Here’s the thing: the rapper was not in public space at the time the words were spoken. He was behind a closed door with his team. He did not know he was being recorded, but not the rantings of this petulant child are scattered across the Internet. There’s no getting them back. You can hear the audio here.

We tend to not give a great deal of thought to how important our words might be, and we almost never give any consideration to who owns the conversations we have, whether face to face or online. When texting your significant other that they need to purchase milk on their way home, one typically doesn’t consider that message profound enough to warrant any type of legal protection. The words are just out there, no big deal.

Consider, however, that one is a songwriter or a scriptwriter swapping ideas with a writing partner. Concepts and phrases jump back and forth between the two, and then, months later, one discovers that the other has used pieces of that conversation in a script or a song without crediting the partner. The next text is likely to be to a lawyer. However, one might ask why one set of words is protected more than the other.

This isn’t a new conversation, actually. I remember while I was still in college, 40 or 50 eons ago, there being a significant lawsuit over who owned letters in a correspondence between a now-famous author and a friend. Both subjects were deceased and the author’s family wanted the letters back because they contained information regarding the influences and inspirations and state of mind the author had while writing different books. The family of the friend did not want to let them go, however, claiming that once the author had mailed the letters they were no longer his (which is standard case law).

So, when you open your mouth or send a message to a friend, regardless of the medium, who owns that information and who has a right to access that information, especially if you’re not around to access it yourself.?

That question is at the core of the FBI’s request, and subsequent court order, for Apple to create software that would undo the encryption on the phone used by one of the shooters in a terrorist act last December. The stance taken by Apple, and vehemently argued by CEO Tim Cook, is that you own the words you type, and the communication you engage through your phone. To that end, Apple has natively encrypted everything on their iPhone with a level of security that even Apple itself cannot hack.

However, laws allow that any communication made in relation to or during the commission of a crime can be used to prosecute those who committed that crime and, especially in the case of what would be considered terrorist activities, to prevent additional crimes from being committed. Therefore, the FBI, with the court’s backing, they have a right to access the information on that phone.

Remember that line in the list of Miranda rights that says, “You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to not remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” All of your words, any of your words, can be used against you. If your words can be used against you, do you still own them?

At the same time, those seemingly innocent conversations can save one a lot of trouble. Let’s go back to that text about buying milk on the way home. That text is essentially creating an alibi for where your significant other goes between work and home. Should a crime be committed in the same area about the same time, that text could potentially help exonerate your partner, but only if you share it. One has to let go of the strict possession of that message.

Even words that we copyright, such as those I’m typing now, we don’t fully own. Copyright law allows for “acceptable use” by third parties, use that does not require my permission. My words can end up used in ways I did not intend and cannot control. In fact, I might never know the extent to which my words are being used out of context.

Here’s the frightening fact: one words leave your brain, regardless of medium, you lose control of those words, where they go, how they are used, and whom they influence. Privacy, as much as we may value it, is an illusion. And words we don’t control can get us into trouble.

Last example: I may tell Kat that I am shooting two people this evening. She understands those words to mean that I’m taking pictures later today. She goes to the salon, then, and casually mentions to one of her co-workers that I am shooting two people this evening. A guest who doesn’t know me becomes alarmed and notifies police. Why? I am shooting two people this evening. Doesn’t that sound like something the police needs to know?

My words, but I don’t own them.

Maybe, just maybe, we should give a bit more thought to our words before we allow them to escape our grasp.

Continue Reading