Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn threatened. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn threatened. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

US Army threatened by rogue iPhones

  • army-machine-gunner-02

    A paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team fires an M240B medium machine gun at insurgent forces in southern Ghazni Province, Afghanistan on June 15, 2012.U.S. Army | Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

The phrase "good enough for government work" apparently applies to the U.S. Army as well.

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently conducted an audit to evaluate how well the most powerful military force on Earth handled the security issues concerning personal mobile devices in conjunction with its professional duties.

The result: If the study falls into enemy hands, you might want to brush up on your North Korean dialects.

The audit covered the use of iOS, Android and Windows mobile devices among Army personnel and in Army facilities, where the devices joined on-site Wi-Fi networks. Thousands of American businesses face the same issues concerning what is commonly called "bring your own device," or BYOD, security.

The DoD tracked the use of 842 devices, which cost an estimated $485,794. The DoD believes that these findings are indicative of the 14,000-plus mobile devices the Army has purchased for its members.

The DoD discovered weaknesses in the Army's mobile strategy right away. The Army's chief information officer, Lt. Gen. Susan S. Lawrence, who oversees her subordinates' technology, failed to give a number of critical instructions.

Lawrence did not require secure storage for data on mobiles, insist on keeping devices free of malware, monitor mobiles while hooked up to computers or even employ training or user agreements to keep military secrets under wraps, the report said.

The Army does not even know where all of its mobiles are. In theory, personal mobile devices need to be authorized before military use, but the audit found almost 15,000 unauthorized devices in use.

The DoD discovered 276 mobiles in use at one facility; the chief information officer was only aware of 180 of them. [See also: 5 Smartphone Security Features We'd Like to See]

The DoD also found regulations lax when it came to device disposal. While the Army's "Policies and Procedures for Property Accountability" are arduous and often arcane, they still prevent Army property from going missing.

In at least one instance, according to investigators, a programmer failed to report a damaged iPhone, disposing of it on his own and replacing it out-of-pocket. The report posits that this behavior could pose a security risk.

The list goes on: many mobile devices had no password protection, ran on outdated operating systems (leaving them open to exploits) or had no protective software installed.

The Army responded by saying it had developed mobile technology guidelines in 2011, but the DoD does not believe that these measures are sufficient.

Currently, the two organizations are working together to develop better guidelines and rein in some of the more cavalier mobile behavior among members of the Army. In the meantime, just hope that the U.S. Army is as secure as it believes itself to be. 


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

FoxNews.com's Jana Winter should be praised, not threatened with jail time

By

Published April 04, 2013

FoxNews.com

While the press in Colorado is consumed with its coverage of the capital murder prosecution of James Holmes for the slaughter he perpetrated in a movie theater in the town of Aurora on July 20, 2012, a related court proceeding is taking place in the same courthouse that the local and national press would be wise to cover.

My Fox News colleague, Jana Winter, an experienced journalist of impeccable integrity, is being threatened with incarceration by a Colorado judge unless she reveals the sources for the excellent and highly newsworthy piece she wrote for FoxNews.com revealing the existence of a notebook written by Mr. Holmes before the murders and sent to his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton.

Winter's report cited unnamed law enforcement sources and the defense immediately complained that investigators had violated the judge's gag order issued days beforehand.

Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect.

Now, in a witch hunt instigated by defense attorneys, the court seeks to learn who revealed the notebook's existence to Ms. Winter. Fourteen cops and investigators have denied being her source under oath, with more testimony next week. Ms. Winter herself has invoked the protection of the Colorado Shield Law, which permits bonafide journalists to decline to reveal their sources on matters of material public interest. But this law, like many, has a loophole in it that might enable a misguided court to incarnate Ms. Winter if the court concludes that its need to know the identity of the source is greater than Ms. Winter’s need to protect the source, and if the identity of the source cannot be obtained by any less intrusive means.

All this means is that if judges want to compel reporters to reveal sources, they can, and the so-called shield laws are meaningless. This has become a power play between the court, the State, and the press. What need does the court have now for the identity of my colleague’s sources? She reported truthfully and accurately of a matter of acute public importance. She first informed the world that Mr. Holmes sent a notebook to a mental health professional full of details about how he was going to kill people.

When one weighs the service Ms. Winter performed--the revelation of a truth--against the wishes of the State in wanting to know who spilled the beans, this is not a close call. Moreover, if courts can force reporters to reveal confidential sources, then who will talk to reporters in the future, and how will inconvenient truths about the government become known?

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to stimulate and protect open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. Truth is essential to that stimulation. Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is profoundly contrary to that purpose and highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect and we have all come to enjoy.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here

FoxNews.com's Jana Winter should be praised, not threatened with jail time

By

Published April 04, 2013

FoxNews.com

While the press in Colorado is consumed with its coverage of the capital murder prosecution of James Holmes for the slaughter he perpetrated in a movie theater in the town of Aurora on July 20, 2012, a related court proceeding is taking place in the same courthouse that the local and national press would be wise to cover.

My Fox News colleague, Jana Winter, an experienced journalist of impeccable integrity, is being threatened with incarceration by a Colorado judge unless she reveals the sources for the excellent and highly newsworthy piece she wrote for FoxNews.com revealing the existence of a notebook written by Mr. Holmes before the murders and sent to his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton.

Winter's report cited unnamed law enforcement sources and the defense immediately complained that investigators had violated the judge's gag order issued days beforehand.

Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect.

Now, in a witch hunt instigated by defense attorneys, the court seeks to learn who revealed the notebook's existence to Ms. Winter. Fourteen cops and investigators have denied being her source under oath, with more testimony next week. Ms. Winter herself has invoked the protection of the Colorado Shield Law, which permits bonafide journalists to decline to reveal their sources on matters of material public interest. But this law, like many, has a loophole in it that might enable a misguided court to incarcerate Ms. Winter if the court concludes that its need to know the identity of the source is greater than Ms. Winter’s need to protect the source, and if the identity of the source cannot be obtained by any less intrusive means.

All this means is that if judges want to compel reporters to reveal sources, they can, and the so-called shield laws are meaningless. This has become a power play between the court, the State, and the press. What need does the court have now for the identity of my colleague’s sources? She reported truthfully and accurately of a matter of acute public importance. She first informed the world that Mr. Holmes sent a notebook to a mental health professional full of details about how he was going to kill people.

When one weighs the service Ms. Winter performed--the revelation of a truth--against the wishes of the State in wanting to know who spilled the beans, this is not a close call. Moreover, if courts can force reporters to reveal confidential sources, then who will talk to reporters in the future, and how will inconvenient truths about the government become known?

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to stimulate and protect open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. Truth is essential to that stimulation. Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is profoundly contrary to that purpose and highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect and we have all come to enjoy.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here