Author Archives: Matthew Pascucci

Petitions to Pardon Snowden – Sign here today!

Posted on by
Please sign the following petitions (here and here) and let President Obama know Edward Snowden deserves clemency for his patriotic acts.

I am writing to ask you to use your presidential authority to pardon Edward Snowden, an American whistleblower who acted on the conviction that the public had a right and need to know about a global mass surveillance system that exceeded the limits of the Constitution. 

Snowden’s actions, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting that followed, set in motion the most important debate about government surveillance in decades, and brought about reforms that continue to benefit our security and democracy. 

Last year, Congress reined in the government’s surveillance authority for the first time in nearly four decades, after a federal appeals court struck down as illegal the NSA’s mass call-tracking program. A blue-ribbon commission you convened recommended 46 sweeping changes to our surveillance and security practices. And technology companies around the world have been newly invigorated to protect their customers and strengthen our communications infrastructure.

None of these reforms would have occurred without Snowden’s actions. Former Attorney General Eric Holder believes that Snowden “performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made.” You have also expressed confidence that the debate about surveillance and democracy he helped launch “will make us stronger.” 

Snowden should not be threatened with serious felony convictions and prolonged confinement under World War One-era laws that treat him like a spy who sold secrets for profit. 

Winston Churchill once wrote, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” Not so with Edward Snowden.

It is clear that America’s democracy has benefited from Snowden’s actions, and I am confident he will be remembered as a whistleblower and patriot. I urge you to use the powers granted to you under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S.Constitution to pardon Edward Snowden.

Continue reading Petitions to Pardon Snowden – Sign here today!→

Posted in SBN

Change the candidates by changing the process

Posted on by

In order to establish change in a nation we need to bring solutions to issues, not complaints. During the 2016 election cycle I’ve heard more gripping about the available candidates then I’ve ever heard during any other previous Presidential election. The reason citizens are voting today isn’t because they think their candidate will serve this country with respect, but because they’re scared of the “other” candidate winning. People are no longer voting for candidates of quality, but being pushed to vote in fear that a candidate they dislike less will be elected. When we cast our ballot for the lesser of two evils we’re still voting for evil. That’s what people don’t seem to realize when they state this logic.

Anyway, that’s the issue, but we’re not here to just complain without action. What can we do in order to fix this this? In my opinion we need more transparency with the government. I think we’ve seen many candidates promoted based of wealth and being part of an already established agreement. With the release of documents by WikiLeaks we saw just how much of this was true within the Democratic party. When your own party leadership has to resign due to back channel deals being made to promote one candidate and suppress another it removes democracy from the people. When a candidate can make crude claims you don’t agree with personally, but it’s the party you voted for in the past and you’re now feeling remorse about your available options; we have a problem as a nation. This is what many Americans feel right now and it these two candidates that will receive the majority of the votes during this election. 
In order to add more transparency to this process and to bring about change from the people, I think we should add an additional voting option. I’ve heard many people say this election that they’re not only upset about the candidates, but so annoyed with the options they’re not voting. This is the type of outrage that our government needs to hear by the casting of ballots, but when your protest vote doesn’t get recorded how do you bring about change?
What if, this is hypothetical here, we had the option to vote “abstain” on the ballot? Many people will abstain from voting and not vote in protest, but what if your protest vote was tallied and recorded? We’ve tried to start other parties and this hasn’t really taken with the majority of Americans in a two party system, but if there was an option to vote your displeasure with the available candidates it might assist with getting better party nominees. Too many people feel the need to vote for anyone within their party, but this allows you to go outside it. The need for additional parties would be a welcome change, but having the option to show recorded protest is another I find very interesting.
Now you’re probably saying, “So what, you’re just taking a vote away from a candidate. Who cares?” Well what if we had enough people vote in this manner that the majority of the people “abstained” from selecting an available candidate? If these states or even the country isn’t satisfied with them we have it pushed to the House to vote on like they would do if a candidate doesn’t reach the 270 electoral votes. This of course isn’t perfect, but it’s an option and it gives transparency to the voting process and allows candidates to be held responsible. Essentially, this gives the power back to the people, not the party.
I’d be very interested in your thoughts.

Continue reading Change the candidates by changing the process→

Posted in SBN

Threat Intelligence Sharing Should Start at the Top

Posted on by
How many vendor phone calls do you dodge every day? One of the most consistent calls that I receive is from vendors selling the latest, greatest “Threat Intelligence” product.  If you are not familiar with threat intelligence, it is the aggregation of suspicious or known malicious information from multiple sources around the world.  This information is then used to warn subscribers of the impending threats.  It is a way for a subscriber of a particular service to achieve “actionable intelligence” about an impending threat.  Sounds neat!

However, I have heard at least one brave webcaster declare that threat intelligence is a steaming pile of dung. This is a bold statement in a world that seems over-run with constant news of cyber-attacks and an even louder tocsin by the public about the urgency to stop it.In a recent meeting with a threat intelligence provider, I too am starting to hold my nose when I am given the pitch about threat intelligence.Most of the threat intelligence vendors will proudly speak of information sharing, that is, when they see a pattern of malicious traffic forming against one of their clients, they will share that information amongst the threat intelligence feed to their other clients.
We are all aware by now of the unprecedented DDoS attack against Brian Krebs In mid- September.  This attack was the largest DDoS ever witnessed on the internet; traffic clocked at 620Gbps was aimed at Brian Krebs’ server. We all felt threatened that such an attack could be so easily carried out by using all of the unsecured IoT devices out there.  We were all equally shocked at Akamai’s initial response to dump Brian, yet we understood the difficult business decision that they had to make to protect their paying customers.
So, why am I all of a sudden holding my nose about threat intelligence?  A vendor was demonstrating their “superior threat intelligence product” and part of their presentation included a boastful commentary about how they saw the attack against Krebs forming before it took place.  Their excellent intelligence gathering capabilities allowed them to see the attack against Akamai in formation.
Allow that to sink in for a moment.
Here are some questions for that vendor: Are you actually boasting that you stood idly by when you witnessed the formation of the greatest attack to date against the entire internet? 
And this model you are selling derives its power from information sharing?
The incongruence of ideology here is somewhat baffling. Sort of like boasting about your superior powers in space defense, yet when an asteroid, capable of an extinction-level event is heading towards the planet, you chose to stand by because it will not impact your country.  What is the logical or ethical sense of that?
I understand business decisions, and how sharing with a competitor is generally considered a poor business decision, but if threat intelligence companies won’t share their information with another intelligence company in the greater interest of the preservation of the internet, why should they expect anyone to subscribe to their sharing and intelligence service? Threat intelligence sharing should start at the top.
Guest Author: Art Logan

Continue reading Threat Intelligence Sharing Should Start at the Top→

Posted in SBN