Faced with mounting international pressure over the Falkland Islands territorial dispute, the British government enlisted its spy service, including a highly secretive unit known for using “dirty tricks,” to covertly launch offensive cyberoperations to prevent Argentina from taking the islands.
A shadowy unit of the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had been preparing a bold, covert plan called “Operation QUITO” since at least 2009. Documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, published in partnership with Argentine news site Todo Notícias, refer to the mission as a “long-running, large scale, pioneering effects operation.”
At the heart of this operation was the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group, known by the acronym JTRIG, a secretive unit that has been involved in spreading misinformation.
The British government, which has continuously administered the Falkland Islands — also known as the Malvinas — since 1833, has rejected Argentine and international calls to open negotiations on territorial sovereignty. Worried that Argentina, emboldened by international opinion, may attempt to retake the islands diplomatically or militarily, JTRIG and other GCHQ divisions were tasked “to support FCO’s [Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s] goals relating to Argentina and the Falkland Islands.” A subsequent document suggests the main FCO goal was to “[prevent] Argentina from taking over the Falkland Islands” and that new offensive cyberoperations were underway in 2011 to further that end.
Tensions between the two nations, which fought a war over the small archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean in 1982, reached a boil in 2010 with the British discovery of large, offshore oil and gas reserves potentially worth billions of dollars.
The British government frames the issue as one of residents’ self-determination. Prime Minister David Cameron maintains that the islands will remain British as long as that was the will of their inhabitants, “full stop, end of story.”
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, known for her provocative, left-leaning foreign policy since taking office in 2007, rallied regional and international leaders to pass resolutions in international bodies supportive of Argentina’s claim to the islands and stand against what she called the U.K.’s “downright colonialism.”
Even the United States, Britain’s closest ally, declined to support the U.K. position, instead offering to mediate a resolution between the two sides in 2010. Prime Minister Cameron rejected the proposal, calling it “disappointing.”
GCHQ’s efforts on Argentina and the Falklands between 2008 and 2011, the time period the documents cover, were broad and not limited solely to JTRIG. Surveillance of Argentine “military and Leadership” communications on various platforms was a “high priority” task. Despite the Obama administration’s unwillingness to publicly back their ally, NSA assistance was ongoing as of 2010. According to an NSA “Extended Enterprise Report” dated June 2008, based on NSA officials’ meetings with GCHQ representatives, Argentina was “GCHQ’s primary interest in the region.”
Tag: Facebook
Bloke faces 25 years in the cooler for upsetting Thai king on Facebook
Setting a record for what may be the most unreasonable jail sentence ever handed down over a Facebook post, a Thailand citizen has started a 25-year stretch behind bars for five pictures deemed insulting to the country’s monarchy.
Tiensutham Suttijitseranee, a 58-year-old businessman, was convicted in a closed military court earlier today, according to Reuters. His relatives and reporters were not allowed to attend, but his lawyer said he was given 10 years for each picture, and the 50-year sentence was then halved because he pleaded guilty.
Tiensutham posted five pictures to Facebook, and added captions that the court decided were defamatory to the Thai royal family. Thailand has the world’s toughest lèse-majesté laws, and it is a crime to insult or threaten to king, queen or regent.
Since a military coup in May 2014, the country’s prime minister – previously the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army – has taken an aggressive stance against anything he feels insults the monarchy.
“Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years,” reads the law, although it has also been interpreted to mean almost anything connected to the royal family.
Report: Facebook tracks all visitors, even if you’re not a user and opted out
Facebook tracks the Web-browsing activities of all visitors to the facebook.com domain even if they are not a Facebook user, according to new research from Europe. The report updates work from earlier this year, which found that Facebook’s updated privacy policy breached EU law.
The research has been commissioned by the Belgian data protection agency, which is investigating Facebook. It was a collaboration between the Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT/Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (ICRI/CIR) at the University of Leuven and the Department of Studies on Media, Information, and Telecommunication (SMIT) of the Vrije Universiteit Brussels.
This newly found tracking, used to provide targeted advertising, is carried out through Facebook’s social widget, the Like Button. A cookie is placed in the browser when someone visits any page in the facebook.com domain, including sections that do not require an account. For visitors that are not Facebook users, the cookie contains a unique identifier, and it has an expiration date of two years. Facebook users receive additional cookies that identify them uniquely. Once those cookies have been set, Facebook will receive them for every subsequent visit to a website that uses Facebook’s social widget. That applies whether or not the Facebook user is logged in to his or her account and whether or not the visitor to the third-party site actually uses the social widget.
UK school group threatens to call police on kids playing adult games
A group of school principals in Cheshire, England is warning parents that they will be on the lookout for evidence that children in their care have access to adult video games at home and will “contact the Police and Children’s Social Care” if they are made aware of it.
The Nantwich Education Partnership, which represents 16 schools in Cheshire, sent a note to parents last month expressing concern that “several children have reported playing, or watching adults play games which are inappropriate for their age and have described the levels of violence and sexual content they have witnessed.” The letter specifically cites Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and Dogs of War (which we assume is a misnamed mangling of God or War or Gears of War) as inappropriate, and also warns parents that children should not have access to Facebook or WhatsApp accounts before they are old enough.
“Access to these games OR to some social media sites such as those above increases early sexualized behaviours (sometimes harmful) in children AND leaves them vulnerable to grooming for sexual exploitation or extreme violence,” the letter reads (as reprinted by The Daily Mail). “If your child is allowed to have inappropriate access to any game or associated product that is designated 18+ we will are [sic] advised to contact the Police and Children’s Social Care as it is neglectful.”
“Pay Off Your Credit Card Debt By Ratting on Software Pirates”
Representing major software companies, the BSA encourages people to report businesses that use unlicensed software.
If one of these reports results in a successful court case, the pirate snitch can look forward to a cash reward, which could amount to a million dollars per case.
According to a BSA executive the campaign has been very successful. It has resulted in many referrals and a decrease in software piracy rates.
Sounds great, but the way BSA recruits their snitches on Facebook is dubious and somewhat surrealistic. Instead of appealing to people’s ethics, the software group chooses to frames the campaign as a get-rich-quick scheme.
BSA continues to surprise us with new ads mainly targeting people who are short on money. For example, a few days ago this ad appeared in the timeline of thousands of Facebook users.
“Looking to pay off your credit card debt? If you know a company using unlicensed business software, file a report today to be eligible for a cash reward,” BSA’s latest Facebook ad reads.
It appears that every time we think BSA has found a new low, they come with a new ad that’s even more questionable. During the holidays, for example, they also appealed to the fact that many people are short on cash.
“Money can get tight during the holidays. If you know a company using unlicensed business software, file a report today to be eligible for a cash reward,’ the holiday ad reads, and there are more examples here.
While the BSA promises a quick cash solution, those who decide to report a pirating company are in it for the long haul. In the fine print it’s explained that people will only get a reward if a successful legal proceeding results in a settlement.
France To Require Internet Companies To Detect ‘Suspicious’ Behavior Automatically, And To Decrypt Communications On Demand
[the proposed law] wants to force intermediaries to “detect, using automatic processing, suspicious flows of connection data”. Internet service providers as well as platforms like Google, Facebook, Apple and Twitter would themselves have to identify suspicious behavior, according to instructions they have received, and pass the results to investigators. The text does not specify, but this could mean frequent connections to monitored pages.
As well as being extremely vague, none of this “automatic detection” will require a warrant, which means that the scope for abuse and errors will be huge. And then there’s this:
the Intelligence bill also addresses the obligations placed on operators and platforms “concerning the decryption of data.” More than ever, France is keen to have the [encryption] keys necessary to read intercepted conversations, even if they are protected.
As we’ve noted before, there is a global push to demonize encryption by presenting it as a “dark place” where bad people can safely hide. What’s particularly worrying is that the measures propposed by France are easy to circumvent using client-side encryption. The fear has to be that once the French government realizes that fact, it will then seek to control or ban this form too.
Bad Strategy: Announcing The Target Of Your Robbery On Facebook Before Giving It A Go
Andrew Hennells, 32, posted a comment on his profile which read: “Doing. Tesco. Over” at 19:25 GMT on 13 February. Just 15 minutes later, after he had held up the King’s Lynn store, police caught Hennells with a knife and £410.
Angry Austrian could turn Europe against the US – thanks to data
In a David versus Goliath battle, an Austrian law student may topple the biggest EU-US data sharing deal when he gets his day in court in a couple of weeks’ time.
Max Schrems, who set up the Europe v Facebook group, alleges that Facebook violated the so-called safe harbour agreement which protects EU citizens’ privacy by transferring personal user data to the US National Security Agency (NSA).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will hear details of the case on 24 March.
Schrems first appealed to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to investigate his claims. He was refused on the grounds that Facebook was signed up to the safe harbour agreement and so could transfer data to the US with impunity.
Under European data protection law, companies can only transfer consumer data out of the EU to countries where there is an “adequate” level of privacy protection. As the US does not meet this adequacy standard, the European Commission and the US authorities came up with a workaround and, in 2000, set up the voluntary safe harbour framework whereby companies promise to protect European citizens’ data.
These promises are enforced by the US Federal Trade Commission – but since the Snowden revelations, there has been doubt these promises are worth the paper they’re written on.
Apartment Complex Claims Copyright Of Tenants’ Reviews And Photos, Charges $10k Fee For Criticism
If you wanted more bad reviews than you could shake a legally-unenforceable clause at, you’d do this:
[Windermere Cay’s] Social Media Addendum, published here, is a triple-whammy. First, it explicitly bans all “negative commentary and reviews on Yelp! [sic], Apartment Ratings, Facebook, or any other website or Internet-based publication or blog.” It also says any “breach” of the Social Media Addendum will result in a $10,000 fine, to be paid within ten business days. Finally, it assigns the renters’ copyrights to the owner—not just the copyright on the negative review, but “any and all written or photographic works regarding the Owner, the Unit, the property, or the apartments.” Snap a few shots of friends who come over for a dinner party? The photos are owned by your landlord.
The Florida apartment complex claims the stupid clause is needed to prevent “unjust and defamatory reviews.” It makes this claim — not in a statement given to Ars Technica (which was tipped off by a resident) — but in the introductory paragraph of the Addendum. From there it gets worse. Doing any of the following triggers a $10,000 fine, with $5,000 added on for each additional “infraction.”
This means that Applicant shall not post negative commentary or reviews on Yelp!, Apartment Ratings, Facebook, or any other website or Internet-based publication or blog. Applicant agrees that Owner shall make the determination of whether such commentary is harmful in Owner’s sole discretion, and Applicant agrees to abide by Owner’ determination as to whether such commentary is harmful.
Then come the copyright demands.
Additionally, each Applicant hereby assigns and transfers to Owner any and all rights, including all rights of copyright as set forth in the United States Copyright Act, in any and all written or photographic works regarding the Owner, the Unit, the property, or the apartments. This means that if an Applicant creates an online posting on a website regarding the Owner, the Unit, the property, or the apartments, the Owner will have the right to notify the website to take down any such online posting pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Of course, when confronted by Ars about the Addendum, the property managers claimed this was all someone else’s fault.
Asked about the Social Media Addendum by Ars, Windermere Cay’s property manager sent this response via e-mail: “This addendum was put in place by a previous general partner for the community following a series of false reviews. The current general partner and property management do not support the continued use of this addendum and have voided it for all residents.”
I would imagine the support was removed and addendum voided shortly after Ars publicized it, and not a moment before. According to Ars, the resident who contacted the site was asked to sign this suddenly-unsupported addendum only “days before.” But Windermere Cay’s management now very likely regrets ever including it in the first place. Like so many others before it, Windermere Cay is learning that attempting to preemptively shut down criticism with bogus clauses and high fees almost always results in more criticism. Its Yelp page is swiftly filling up with negative reviews and — like every other emotionally-charged incident on the internet, has already achieved Godwin.
Feds Say They Have Accused Fraudster’s Ankle Bracelet in Custody
Unfortunately, he’s not in it at the moment.
Paul Ceglia, who once sued Mark Zuckerberg claiming half of Facebook, and who last appeared here back in Assorted Stupidity #39 after his ninth set of lawyers withdrew from that case, has disappeared. His case against Zuckerberg was, surprisingly, dismissed after the judge found it was based on fabricated evidence, and Ceglia was later charged with fraud. Ceglia denounced that move, indignantly pleading not guilty. “I have no interest in a plea deal of any sort,” he told Ars Technica in August, facing a May trial date. “The very idea of it suggests that I have done something wrong. Of course I intend to go to trial,” he said.
He seems to have changed his mind, or else he went on an unapproved vacation and forgot to take his electronic-monitoring bracelet along. Maybe he was just concerned about tan lines?
Ceglia had been released on $250,000 bond and was required to give up his passport, so most likely he has gone to ground somewhere in the United States. A federal marshal was unable to confirm that, though, telling a reporter that he did not know whether Ceglia was still in the country. “Our responsibility is to locate him,” he told the reporter, which at first seemed like stating the obvious but now seems like a polite answer to what was probably a stupid question.
“I can confirm that the suspect has disappeared.”
“Do you know whether he’s still in the country?”
“We don’t know where he is. That’s what ‘disappeared’ means.”
The judge presiding over the case said he was “cautiously optimistic” that Ceglia would return to the jurisdiction in the near future, though he didn’t say why. Since Ceglia most likely is still in the U.S., because he doesn’t have a passport and our borders are hermetically sealed, it probably is just a matter of time before he is recaptured. Although it could take a while if he were to do something especially sneaky like, let’s say, get a job with the Homeland Security Department. That’s the last place they’d look, or at least it used to be.