Posts

twitter

Judge Rules Elon Musk Can Use Whistleblower Claims in Twitter Lawsuit

/in , /by

Twitter paid $7 million to former security chief Peiter Zatko before he filed a whistleblower complaint against the company. A judge has ruled that Zatko’s allegations can be part of Elon Musk’s defense in his legal battle with Twitter.

Zatko alleges the social media giant covered up known security issues and used weak safeguarding measures to protect its users’ sensitive data.

The settlement between Zatko and Twitter occurred before Zatko filed his whistleblower complaint in July and concerned Zatko’s lost compensation after being fired from the company in January. It contained a nondisclosure agreement restricting him from speaking poorly about the company or releasing information about his time as cybersecurity head at Twitter.

The settlement contained a clause that allows him to speak at congressional hearings and governmental whistleblower complaints, as many NDAs do.

Embed from Getty Images

On Tuesday, Zatko will testify before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about his knowledge of the security flaws in Twitter’s infrastructure. Zatko claims that he “uncovered extreme, egregious deficiencies by Twitter in every area of his mandate.”

Employees had access to integral company software, which led to the “commandeering of accounts” held by high-profile figures. Several heads of state, government officials and well-known celebrities have long used the website to communicate with the public.

Since July, Musk has been trying to back out of his deal to buy the company for $44 billion. Twitter has begun a legal battle against him, citing Musk’s bad faith in breaching his contract with the company. In a 62-page legal document, Twitter documented Musk’s behavior throughout the ordeal with colorful language and photos of his many tweets regarding the acquisition.

“Having mounted a public spectacle to put Twitter in play and having proposed and then signed a seller-friendly merger agreement, Musk apparently believes that he—unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law—is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value and walk away.”

Musk’s lawyers plan to use the information Zatko divulged about Twitter’s security vulnerabilities as a central part of their case. Twitter’s shareholders will also cast votes on Musk’s takeover of the company Tuesday.

Musk’s defense to back out of the acquisition is that the company did not disclose the number of bots its userbase contains, tweeting, “Twitter deal temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users.”

The timeline of Musk’s tech deal with Twitter is erratic and turbulent. The lawsuit document cites many of Musk’s posted memes and tweets, which Twitter’s legal team will use to show how Musk treated the process as an “elaborate joke.” At one point, he responded to a Twitter thread by Twitter’s CEO Parag Agarwal, which explains Twitter’s handling of spam accounts, with a “poop emoji.”

Embed from Getty Images

On April 4, Musk was revealed to be Twitter’s largest shareholder at 9% of the company’s shares.

On April 5, CEO Parag Agarwal announced that Musk would join Twitter’s board of directors with the agreement that Musk could not acquire more than 15% of shares before 2024. Musk had been purchasing shares since January.

On April 10, Agarwal revealed that Musk would no longer be joining the board.

On April 14, Musk offered to buy the remaining Twitter shares for $41.4 billion. In response to this, Twitter adopted a “poison-pill strategy,” which allows other shareholders to buy more shares at a discounted rate if a person or entity purchases more than a certain percentage of common stock without the board’s approval. It is used to prevent a company takeover by a hostile buyer.

On April 25, Twitter agreed to sell itself to Musk for $44 billion.

On May 13, Musk tweeted that the deal was temporarily on hold, citing his concerns about spam accounts. Shares of the company immediately plummeted.

On July 8, Musk tried to terminate the acquisition agreement.

On July 12, Twitter sued Musk for failing to meet contractual obligations.

Zatko’s complaint supports Musk’s allegations about the percentage of bots the website’s user base contains.

“There are many millions of active accounts that are not considered “mDAU,” either because they are spam bots or because Twitter does not believe it can monetize them. These millions of non-mDAU accounts are part of the median user’s experience on the platform. And for this vast set of non-mDAU active accounts, Musk is correct: Twitter executives have little or no personal incentive to accurately “detect” or measure the prevalence of spam bots.”

Twitter believes that Musk started to back out of the deal when Tesla stocks began to decline due to stock market trends. Most of Musk’s wealth is not liquid, and he was planning to finance most of the deal with Twitter using Tesla stock.

Facebook Whistleblower To Testify In Front Of Senate Regarding Company’s Impact On Kids

/in , /by

Frances Haugen is a former Facebook product manager, who was recently identified as the Facebook whistleblower who released tens of thousands of pages of research and documents that indicate the company was more than aware of the various negative impacts its platforms have, particularly on young girls. 

Haugen worked on civic integrity issues within the company. Now, Haugen will be questioned by a Senate Commerce subcommittee about what Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, knew regarding its effects on young users and a multitude of other issues. 

Embed from Getty Images

“I believe what I did was right and necessary for the common good — but I know Facebook has infinite resources, which it could use to destroy me. I came forward because I recognized a frightening truth: almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook.”

Haugen previously shared a series of documents with regulators at the Wall Street Journal, which published a multi-part investigation on Facebook, showing the platform was aware of the problems within its apps, including the negative effects of misinformation’s and the harm caused by Instagram on young users. 

“When we realized tobacco companies were hiding the harm it caused, the government took action. When we figured out cars were safer with seat belts, the government took action. And today, the government is taking action against companies that hid evidence on opioids. I implore you to do the same here. Facebook’s leadership won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their immense profits before people,” she explained. 

This is not the first time Facebook will be subject to Congressional hearings regarding its power and influence over its users. Haugen’s upcoming testimony will speak to the overall issue of social media platforms and the amount of power they have in regards to personal data and privacy practices. 

Embed from Getty Images

Haugen discussed how her goal isn’t to bring down Facebook, but to reform it from the toxic traits that continue to exist today. Around a month ago Haugen filed at least eight complaints to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaints alleged that the company is hiding research about its shortcomings from investors, and of course, the public. 

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chairs the Senate Commerce subcommittee on consumer protection, released a statement this Sunday after Haugen’s appearance on “60 Minutes” where she identified herself as the whistleblower.

“From her [Haugen’s] first visit to my office, I have admired her backbone and bravery in revealing terrible truths about one of the world’s most powerful, implacable corporate giants. We now know about Facebook’s destructive harms to kids … because of documents Frances revealed.”

Following the Wall Street Journal’s investigative piece on Facebook, Antigone Davis, the company’s global head of safety, was questioned by members of the same Senate subcommittee, specifically in regards to Facebook’s impact on young users. Davis tried to downplay the idea that these reports are being seen as a “bombshell” by the public, and didn’t commit to releasing a fully detailed research report, to defend Facebook’s side of the argument, due to “privacy considerations.”

“Facebook’s actions make clear that we cannot trust it to police itself. We must consider stronger oversight, effective protections for children, and tools for parents, among the needed reforms,” Senator Blumenthal added.

Lawyer Meeting

Lawyer Analyzes Republicans’ Impeachment Defenses

/in , /by

Among the American electorate, some of the most common reactions to the ongoing impeachment saga currently taking place in Congress are confusion and frustration with the political system. A widely-shared New York Times article quotes a nurse, who despite not being able to see herself voting for Trump in 2020, said, “There’s so much information that sometimes it’s hard to decide which is the truth and which is just rumors, so I just don’t pay attention to it.” According to various polls, roughly half of Americans think Trump should be impeached and removed from office, but the president’s approval rating has remained shockingly steady even after overwhelming evidence of Trump’s attempt to coerce Ukraine into supporting his reelection campaign came to light. 

Given the contradictory and complex narratives of events being promulgated by Democrats, Republicans, and the media, it’s not hard to understand why so many Americans are confused and disinterested in politics. As such, during a time when disinformation is propagated by foreign adversaries in order to harm the American public’s ability to discern truth, it is useful to listen to the arguments made by legal experts and other nonpartisan professionals who have a strong understanding of legal and political matters. For people who don’t know what to make of Democrats’ accusations and Republicans’ defenses, lawyer Devin J. Stone posted a lengthy Youtube video analyzing the Republican arguments against impeachment from a legal perspective.

Stone begins his video by observing that in the mainstream media, many have claimed that the Republican arguments have fallen apart completely after the conclusion of public impeachment hearings. In response, he says he will try to “steelman” the Republican arguments, which is to say that in order to ensure fairness, he wants to present the most convincing possible interpretation of their arguments. The Republican narrative surrounding impeachment-related issues is multifaceted and disorganized, so Stone takes his time in breaking down each argument to determine whether they are logically sound. The first argument he tackles is the claim that there was no quid pro quo, which has been the preferred defense of President Trump. Stone points out that Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a Trump appointee who donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration, explicitly testified that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo, that it was directed by the president, and that “everybody was in the loop.” Sondland’s testimony is corroborated by the other witnesses as well as documentary evidence such as text messages and the memorandum of the July call released by the White House.

Embed from Getty Images

While Republicans have correctly pointed out that none of the fact witnesses called before congress used the word “bribery” in their testimonies, Stone argues that it is not the role of fact witnesses to make judgments about whether Trump’s conduct amounted to the legal definition of “bribery” as the House of Representatives holds this responsibility when they draft articles of impeachment. Many Republicans’ arguments have since shifted to the claim that although there was a quid pro quo, it was not improper, as quid pro quos happen “all the time” in foreign policy; while this is true, the quid-pro-quo in question differed from standard foreign policy tactics as it was used in service of assisting the President’s reelection campaign.

Another argument voiced by Representative Kevin McCarthy claims that because the quid pro quo was ultimately unsuccessful, as Ukraine did not announce an investigation into the Bidens and the withheld military aid to Ukraine was eventually released, there was no wrongdoing. It is true that the scheme ultimately failed; however, Stone points out that attempted crimes are still crimes even if they are unsuccessful, and recent reporting suggests that Trump released the aid to Ukraine because he learned about the whistleblower complaint, and that the president of Ukraine would have announced an investigation into the Bidens if it weren’t for the impeachment inquiry. 

While Republicans have complained that all of the evidence so far is “hearsay,” Stone points out that hearsay evidence can be very powerful in court, and that direct evidence unearthed by the inquiry supports the hearsay evidence. Additionally, the reason that little direct evidence has been uncovered is that Trump has blocked witnesses with firsthand knowledge of events from testifying, which in itself suggests obstruction of justice, another impeachable offense. Furthermore, the administration has not provided a justification for the aid being withheld in the first place other than that the president ordered it, an act that was likely illegal as the aid in question was approved by Congress and signed into law by Trump himself. Under the Constitution, Congress has the “power of the purse,” and the president does not have the authority to subvert Congress’ spending decisions.

As citizens of a democratic republic, we share an obligation to understand political matters in order to preserve the American tradition of democratic governance.

Some have correctly pointed out that President Zelensky of Ukraine has said that he did not feel any pressure to open an investigation into the Bidens. However, Zelensky’s claim is dubious given reporting about how Ukraine reacted to Trump’s phone call, and Stone points out that in a legal context, it doesn’t even matter whether or not Zelensky understood that he was being pressured to investigate Biden, as the relevant legal question is whether Trump intended to pressure the foreign country for his personal political benefit. Representative Jim Jordan has essentially taken a “no harm, no foul” position, saying that because the aid was released and Ukraine did not open an investigation, no wrongdoing occurred; however, this argument ignores the fact that Ukrainians died in connection with the United States’ withholding of assistance, and the existence of this alleged bribery scheme itself has a harmful effect on democratic institutions, namely on the integrity of elections.

Embed from Getty Images

One of the Republican arguments is literally that Trump could not have committed the crime in question because he is too incompetent to do so, and as such there is no “mens rea,” or criminal intent. Stone calls this the “too dumb to crime” defense, which is undermined by the fact that the call memorandum clearly shows intent, as does Trump’s decision to release the aid after getting caught, and while some of the evidence is circumstantial, it is powerful nonetheless. Republicans have also argued that the president controls foreign policy, and as such cannot be impeached over foreign policy decisions; again, while it’s true that Trump has the right to control foreign policy, this does not mean he can exercise this right to do things that are illegal or impeachable. Additionally, some Republicans have presented a theory that the State Department went rogue, acting on its own instead of on behalf of the president, but this is directly contradicted by the call memorandum and witness testimony. Republicans have said that the president was simply trying to root out corruption in Ukraine; Stone points out that this very well may have been one of the president’s motivations, but adds that people can have multiple motivations for doing things, and the evidence strongly suggests that at least one of Trump’s motivations was to help his own campaign. Furthermore, the President has his own, superior powers to investigate corruption in Ukraine, such as the FBI and the Justice Department, and as such could have directed these agencies to investigate Ukrainian corruption rather than asking Ukraine to do so.

The final Republican argument, which few if any Republicans have publicly made as of yet but likely will soon, is that Trump’s actions were wrong but not impeachable. Ultimately, this is the decision that Congress is tasked with making, but the American people will have a chance to weigh in on the matter in the next election, and as such should know that one of the reasons that impeachment was included in the Constitution was that the Founders were worried that a president might use the powers of his office to harm American democracy.

While this article is lengthy, it does not cover all of the current political discourse surrounding impeachment, as Republicans are proliferating a counter-narrative implicating Joe Biden and his son in corruption. There’s no doubt that the facts surrounding the impeachment inquiry have become extremely complex, and Americans shouldn’t be blamed for prioritizing issues in their personal lives over paying attention to politics. However, as citizens of a democratic republic, we share an obligation to understand political matters in order to preserve the American tradition of democratic governance. As Republican senators are likely to vote to acquit Trump on impeachment charges, the upcoming election in 2020 functions not only as a referendum on Donald Trump, but on the concept of American democracy as a whole, as Trump has been actively subverting democratic norms and standards since taking office, most notably by his active attempts to cheat in the next election by abusing the powers of his office to coerce foreign powers into interfering, as Democrats allege. As such, it is incumbent upon each of us to spend some of our time and energy on understanding the present political crisis, as the future of American democracy potentially hinges on the outcome of the 2020 election. 

Laptop Google Search

Whistle Blower Posts Video of ‘Project Nightingale’ Leaving Google to Face Investigation

/in , /by

A video posted on social media by a whistleblower that Google has been working with Ascension, the second largest healthcare provider in the country, on a secret project has been met with growing concern.

According to the whistleblower, Project Nightingale has been secretly transferring the personal medical data of up to 50 million Americans from Ascension to Google, without their permission.

The secret project has seen healthcare data being transferred to Google without being de-indentified, meaning the full personal details including names and medical history are available to be accessed by Google staff.

The whistleblower also shares the news that by the time the full transfer has been completed – around March next year – over 50 million patients across 21 states will have had their personal data sent across to Google, without informing any of the patients or doctors involved.

As well as names, lab results, medical diagnoses and hospitalization records, notes from a private meeting between Ascension employees involved in the project were also shared. In the document concerns about the way Google would use the personal information were raised, including building new artificial intelligence.

The meeting also raised security fears such as the transfer being in breach of federal HIPAA rules on data privacy, questions that Google have not answered as yet.

Embed from Getty Images

With over 2,600 medical facilities including clinics and hospitals, Ascension – a Catholic network – is believed to be conducting the biggest data transfer so far in the healthcare field. But this isn’t the first partnership that Google has entered into albeit their other partnerships have been on a smaller scale, including the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine. However the data was encrypted with only the medical center able to access the data.

Although the identity of the whistleblower is not known it is understood they are one of around 300 employees working on Project Nightingale, with roughly a fifty per cent split between Google and Ascension. The Wall Street Journal originally broke the story on Monday 11th November and the data transfer deal was formally signed only hours later.

The whistleblower decided to go public due to the widespread anxiety throughout the project’s employees with many worried about the way in which Google was able to access millions of patients personal data.

“Most Americans would feel uncomfortable if they knew their data was being haphazardly transferred to Google without proper safeguards and security in place. This is a totally new way of doing things. Do you want your most personal information transferred to Google? I think a lot of people would say no.”

The concerns about so much information, that is potentially very valuable, being collated by just one company has also been mentioned with the possibility that Google could use its own AI analytics to work out medical diagnoses for patients.

“In the future, such risks are only likely to grow. This is the last frontier of extremely sensitive data that needs to be protected.”

Embed from Getty Images

Surprisingly this is not the first time Google has seen itself in trouble thanks to their plans to become the leading figure in healthcare analytics and data. Only a few years ago in 2017 1.6 million patient records were transferred from the Royal Free Hospital in London, England to Google’s artificial intelligence division with the UK’s watchdog on data declaring Deep Mind Health to have an ‘inappropriate legal basis’.

Like all companies Google, and more specifically their parent company Alphabet, has ambitions. Alphabet has made no secret that they wish to develop new AI tools to predict health patterns, meaning they can improve treatment. Google are also keen to expand into the digital health market and recently announced plans to buy fitness company Fitbit for $2.1billion.

After the disclosure of Project Nightingale both Ascension and Google have released statements confirming they are keeping in line with all HIPAA and federal health laws, stating that all patient data collected is ‘protected’.

A recent interview by Google Cloud in the Wall Street Journal declared that Google were working towards “ultimately improving outcomes, reducing costs, and saving lives.” Ascension also stated “all work related to Ascension’s engagement with Google is HIPAA compliant and underpinned by a robust data security and protection effort and adherence to Ascension’s strict requirements for data handling.”

However, those watching the whistleblower’s video can see that this is something they definitely do not agree with. Annotations appear over the documents suggesting Google are wanting to share or even sell the information to third parties, or even create profiles which can be used to advertise healthcare products.

The whistleblower says ‘Patients haven’t been told how Ascension is using their data and have not consented to their data being transferred to the cloud or being used by Google. At the very least patients should be told and be able to opt in or opt out.’

What happens next remains to be seen but with companies compiling databases of personal information like these, it is no wonder the US Department of Health has launched an investigation.

Russia

Edward Snowden’s Life in Russia and his New Memoir

/in , /by

Edward Snowden, the infamous whistleblower who in 2013 revealed the extent of the NSA’s surveillance on ordinary citizens, has written a memoir entitled Permanent Record which releases tomorrow, September 17th. Snowden, 36, has lived with his wife in Moscow ever since leaking highly classified government information to The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden was charged by the Obama administration with theft of government property and violating the Espionage Act, and his passport was revoked. Snowden never intended on living in Russia in the long term, and was actually en route to Havana, Cuba when his passport was cancelled, leaving him stuck in Russia. Snowden has advocated for greater asylum protection for whistleblowers such as himself around the world, and has expressed regret about the fact that the only safe place for him to live is in Russia, not in Europe where protections on free speech and privacy are thought to be more respected.

Embed from Getty Images

Despite being physically restricted to his home in Moscow, Snowden has been active in intelligence community circles, particular among organizations devoted to digital privacy and freedom. Oftentimes, Snowden will appear virtually at conferences over the internet, sometimes taking advantage of a telepresence robot to speak at events around the world. Though it’s been six years since his controversial decision to share classified information about the NSA’s surveillance, Snowden has recently gained attention in the news media as he is promoting his upcoming memoir. In 2013, Snowden applied for asylum in many countries, including France and was offered asylum in four countries, but was unable to travel to any of them without passing through a country which would have extradited him to the US. 

Snowden has stated that while he is located in Russia, he has no interest in providing commentary on Russian politics and feels that he lives “on the Internet.” Snowden, however, has said that Russia is a beautiful country with friendly people. His asylum status in Russia, however, is temporary; initially he was granted asylum for only one year, but his permission to stay in the country has since been extended and is now set to expire in 2020. Snowden still considers himself an American, and wants to return to his home country; however, as he believes he would not be granted a fair trial in the States and would likely face a lengthy prison term with the threat of solitary confinement, he doesn’t consider this an option. Snowden argues that, by leaking information about the NSA, he acted in the public interest and thus didn’t break the law; however, under the terms of his indictment Snowden would not be allowed to mount a public interest defense, rendering this justification moot in the eyes of the legal system.

Snowden no longer disguises himself in public, and moves freely about his city, visiting restaurants, cafes, and art galleries, and spending time with friends.

In his memoir, Snowden describes his experience using the internet to communicate anonymously with like-minded individuals while he was growing up, the circumstances that led to his becoming interested in computer science, hacking, and privacy, and the experiences he had in the military and working for Booz-Allen, a security contractor for the US government. Snowden expresses his concern that global intelligence communities are moving towards having the capacity to create a profile detailing all of the conversations and behaviors of everybody on the planet, and is particularly worried about the surveillance behavior made possible by advancements in artificial intelligence, which have the potential to make the widespread collection of data on ordinary people even more accurate and detailed.

Embed from Getty Images

Though he’d prefer to live in a different country, Snowden has grown accustomed to his life in Russia. When he first arrived, he was deathly afraid of leaving his apartment for fear of being captured by the authorities, and when he did go outdoors he would wear scarves, hats, and coats to disguise his appearance. Now, several years later, Snowden no longer disguises himself in public, and moves freely about his city, visiting restaurants, cafes, and art galleries, and spending time with friends. He makes his living by collecting fees for speaking with students, civil rights activists, and others, and though it is not yet released, his memoir is already the #1 Best Seller in Amazon’s Political Intelligence category. Though he is stuck within Russia’s borders, Snowden enjoys travelling, and has visited St. Petersburg and the Black Sea resort of Sochi, among other places.