16 ms·
U.S. tightens export controls on items used in surveillance of private citizens
- nixpulvis 5y agoI find it deeply ironic that an authority is using it's powers to implement regulation (goodness or badness aside) which claims to "help ensure that U.S. companies are not fueling authoritarian practices". Somehow I doubt this will lead to myself being any less surveilled... but maybe I'm just being cynical. I want power to the people! But we are all just so damn stupid these days.
- qwerty456127 5y agoI hope it could also force other countries like Israel and Switzerland to follow like it did in other areas like the wars on drugs, copyright piracy and tax evasion.
- balozi 5y agoIn practice, what is happening here is that people in certain governments are trying to corner the intelligence/surveillance market. To get the capabilities you'll have to go through them, or at least their anointed vendors. So, just like F35 planes and MRAPs, you can get them if you interface with the right interests.
- jonas_kgomo 5y agoThis is not dissimilar to export of cryptography law that passes for strong encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- sharmin123 5y agoFacebook Safety Tips: Take Steps Now and Avoid Hacking: https://www.hackerslist.co/facebook-safety-tips-take-steps-now-and-avoid-hacking/ https://www.hackerslist.co/facebook-safety-tips-take-steps-n...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 5y ago> The United States Government opposes the misuse of technology to abuse human rights or conduct other malicious cyber activities... Well, that's news. When did that change?
- RNCTX 5y agoMust've been very recent. A bunch of former Obama staffers tried to run a fake Facebook coup in Bolivia just a couple of years ago. Prior to that former Senator Jim DeMint did the same thing in Honduras with Obama admin (Hillary Clinton) help. Quite literally nothing has changed since the former Confederate US states envisioned South America as the host of their slave-powered empire.
- gumby 5y agoSays right in the release, emphasis mine: > Today’s rule .... Comments to the rule must be received in no later than 45 days from today, and the rule will become effective 90 days from today. The notice is dated today, 20 October
- brink 5y agoRight after the polls fell and didn't bounce.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago> The United States Government opposes the misuse of technology to abuse human rights or conduct other malicious cyber activities... (When other nations do it, and without our permission)
- viro 5y agoThis is funny because people lose their damn minds about WHO... NSO sells their products to.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoI simply don't understand how the US can issue statements like these given the existence of CIA, NSA, etc.
- colecut 5y agoNo change in things used to blow them up.
- wolverine876 5y agoThere are many export controls for those. Often you need specific permission.
- markdown 5y agoWhich is granted to terror regimes like Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.
- PeterisP 5y agoThey are granted to countries where US considers that helping the regime benefits US interests and forbidden to countries where helping the regime does not benefit US interests. Stuff to make blowing people up more effective and digital surveillance tools are rightly in the same category.
- wolverine876 5y agoWe may dispute the wisdom of the decisions, but there are certainly strict export controls on military equipment. For example, exporting nuclear submarines to Australia is big news because it's a major exception. F-22 fighter planes cannot be exported to anyone, by law.
- RNCTX 5y agothat hurricane in Florida in 2018 exported them to the neighbors across the street, didn't even ask permission.
- jt_thurs_82 5y agoI'm trying to dig through this to understand what it means, but I am far from an expert on regulations or legalese. I'm looking forward to any breakdowns and explanations/annotations of the passages in this article and rule. If anyone has any, please let me know in the reply?
- codazoda 5y agoI can’t help but wonder if encryption export controls will be slipped into this mess. Seems like a good place to hide them but I don’t have time to drudge through this at the moment.
- averysmallbird 5y agoThere's already export controls on encryption. Have been for decades.
- kfprt 5y agoWe're way past that, the horse has bolted.
- codazoda 5y agoAre you saying we're way past the point where encryption could be restricted from export in the U.S.? Because encryption exports are controlled and when I first started programming they were completely illegal. Every once in a while new legislation is proposed to make these exports illegal again, usually to "save the children". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... Based on other comments here, I'll assume there is no hidden agenda on encryption here but a document this messy is probably hiding "stuff" (on purpose or not).
- zorked 5y agoEncryption is restricted from export in the US. I've had to submit forms to do things as trivial as buying microcontrollers from TI which happened to have AES instructions. No idea why I can go into a store and buy an infinitely more powerful Intel laptop without a form, though.
- wyager 5y agoThose are only for our government to use!
- viro 5y agoYea, because NSO group has taught us that we can't trust governments to not abuse these tools. for example the Mexico and in turn the cartel use of pegasus.
- NotSammyHagar 5y agoYes, it's Israel that needs to do this, perhaps much more than the US, because it's the Israel company's tools that have found their way into the hands of people surveiling protesters across the world. I'm sure US companies have nefarious technical hacking tools too, but why do all those reports list Israel? Let's help stop these kinds of tools world wide.
- elliekelly 5y agoI've tried to read the (currently unpublished) interim final rule to see what's been added but with all of the ECCN, country groups, and license exceptions cross-referenced it's practically incomprehensible: [PDF] https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-22774.pdf https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-22774.pdf
- tossaway9000 5y agoThere are lots of interesting bits in there though, such as: > List of Items Controlled > a. Any type of telecommunications equipment having any of the following characteristics, functions or features > a.2. Specially hardened to withstand gamma, neutron or ion radiation; is ECC memory now a controlled item?
- duskwuff 5y agoNo. ECC memory isn't "hardened" in the technical sense intended here; it's simply error-detecting. What this primarily refers to is hardware which has been fabricated on an exotic semiconductor process (like silicon-on-insulator substrates) to resist radiation-induced upsets or latchup. This hardware is almost exclusively used in military and space applications; it's basically nonexistent in the consumer space.
- thereddaikon 5y agoI wish it were but then again I'm not ready to spend $20k on a cellphone with performance from 2005.
- idiotsecant 5y ago>I wish it were Why?
- thereddaikon 5y agoBecause its cool. Am I not allowed to want something because I think its neat? I don't need night vision goggles either but man it would be cool to walk around in the woods at night with them on and star gaze.
- kfprt 5y agoI read this as surveillance targets everyone. If it hurts US billionaires it hurts US national interests and we get a law/rule/regulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos_phone_hacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos_phone_hacking
- jackTheMan 5y agoSo apple cannot export the 'pedofil' image search to China?
- axiosgunnar 5y agoSo facebook will not be accessible from abroad? Great!
- 908B64B197 5y agoI sometime wonder if we should go one step further and help getting as many Starlink dishes as possible into China/Russia/Iran/Cuba/NK (the worse offenders in term of censorship and human rights violation) to finally give their population access to real, free information instead of whatever heavily censored network the local regime allows.
- 55873445216111 5y agoChina could always shoot down some satellites if Starlink allowed access in China without approval. Yes, there are 1000's of Starlink satellites, but I doubt SpaceX wants to get into this kind of a fight.
- bob1029 5y agoIn my estimation, this is an asymmetric battle that China would not be able to win. How many satellites can china intercept per launch? How many satellites can SpaceX (currently) put up per launch?
- ygjb 5y agoYeah, it's a battle that China may not be able to win, but the United States government continuing to permit SpaceX to deploy satellites that are used to circumvent Chinese policy would be a clear act of aggression, especially if China had taken action to assert control over it's domestic communications. I mean, it's entirely possible that some elements of the US government might prefer that, but generally speaking, I don't think that's a winning strategy for SpaceX. I think that even the most ardent Musk fans should anticipate how quickly tolerance for Musk's cavalier attitude dries up once missiles start flying.
- retzkek 5y ago> How many satellites can SpaceX (currently) put up per launch? Probably rhetorical, but I'll be that guy: 50-60 on Falcon 9, up to 400 planned on Starship.
- BatFastard 5y ago
- godelski 5y agoOne thing I've never understood is why Blue teams don't get as much funding. Cyber defense is much harder than cyber offense. I know there is a lot you can do by tracking citizens and a lot of information you can get, but if you're not blue teaming your country then an adversarial country can use exactly all those same tools you're excited about using on your adversaries. I feel the red teams get all the money and the blue teams get pushed off to the side. I do want to keep red teams, but I want to see NSA also doing bug bounties, increasing security in Android and iOS, strengthening the internet, etc. Why is this not happening? Why are we also not outraged about this?
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoYou can't measure the true effectiveness of blue teams so in MBA terms they are a useless cost center. At best the sort of thing that should be outsourced to the lowest bidder. Exploit happens... See! Look how bad the blue team is.
- sandworm101 5y ago>> but if you're not blue teaming your country then an adversarial country can use exactly all those same tools you're excited about You miss the point of these tools. They are not being used to protect country A from country B. They are being used to protect those running country A from those living in country A. Country B and its people are not in the picture. You don't blue team the target because you don't want to make it more difficult to watch. If anything, you want to deny them strong security tools. Your red team can do that very well.
- corndoge 5y agoI agree with you but please, no more outrage. We have enough outrage. Be a proponent of something without being outraged about it. It's not doing any good to be outraged and it's exhausting.
- yuuu 5y agoThanks for protecting us, outrage police!
- hulitu 5y agoSo they will not export Android, iOS, MS Windows, Alexa, Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Adobe and others ?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- eggbrain 5y agoFor those of you (like me) who weren't sure exactly how to interpret the rule based on the link above or the original PDF, I believe this Washington Post article from today also summarizes it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/commerce-department-announces-new-rule-aimed-at-stemming-sale-of-hacking-tools-to-repressive-governments/2021/10/20/ecb56428-311b-11ec-93e2-dba2c2c11851_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/commerce-de...
- edge17 5y agoIs it illegal in the US to sell zero-day exploits, or to package up zero-day exploits into nice usable tools? My understanding is that it is not illegal, but something like this perhaps give the US a tool to pursue and/or prosecute individuals that engage in these types of sales when they are selling to the 'wrong' customer (the 'right' customer being NSA or other US intelligence gathering operations).
- OminousWeapons 5y agoTo my knowledge, it is illegal to sell exploit kits to actors that you know are going to use the kits to commit crimes (e.g. if someone sends you an email saying "I'm looking for an exploit kit so that I can attack company X and steal their IP", you cannot legally sell to them). It is otherwise legal to sell, rent, or give away exploits to the general public or to resellers like Zerodium as long as they are not marketed as criminal tools.
- edge17 5y agoFor sure, but in practical terms these types of dealings often have middle men and the end buyer is often not known (by design). Everything I know is from podcasts and books, so I'm not an authority on the subject - though I would point out that the enormous amount of red tape in the west tends to be something that westerners seem to project onto the rest of the world. In much of the world, things are just far more loose.
- wil421 5y agoRead the book This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race by Nicole Perlroth There’s a few chapters in the beginning about the history of the exploit market. Haven’t finished it yet. To my knowledge it’s not illegal to sell vulnerabilities. If you’re not a government contractor selling/contracting to the US government it would be illegal to sell exploit chains or working software that uses the exploits/malware what have you. The book touches on how they sold multiple of the same zero days to multiple agencies. It got to the point where one of the guys was like you (3 letter agencies) need to talk to each other and stop wasting taxpayer money.
- fidesomnes 5y agowhat about public citizens?
- m0zg 5y agoApple, Google, Facebook and Twitter, the main surveillance tools of our kakistocratic regime, are going to get decimated.
- encryptluks2 5y agoYet they will allow Chinese routers that require an app on your phone to use and where you can't turn off the cloud functionality. Looking at you TP-Link.
- aasasd 5y agoDid a US government site just slap me with a modal popup offering to snatch my email address off me? Before I had a chance to see anything on the site? I absentmindedly closed it immediately at first, and had to delete the site's cookies to check if I saw that right.
- honksillet 5y agoNo just export, but in country controls. The government wants a monopoly.
- xxpor 5y agoWell they are violent weapons, so a government should want a monopoly.
- zemo 5y agoso it sounds like American companies helping the US government spy on Americans is OK, American companies helping the US government spy on people in other countries is OK, American companies helping foreign governments spy on their own people is not OK. If they believe these tools are effective, it sounds like they want to prevent foreign governments from using American technology to defend themselves against American agents. “Computer powered super surveillance is our thing, you don’t get to play with it” is how it reads to me.
- PeterisP 5y agoOf course, that's the whole point of export controls - to ensure that companies creating government-useful technology benefit your country and not other countries unless your government explicitly approves export.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoOf course, that's the whole point: Don't give others weapons they may use against you and your interests. Now, this is usually, like in this case, nicely wrapped up for the public.
- BobbyJo 5y agoIs there any other way to read into the government's authority at large? The entire premise of government is that is assumes power over others. Monopoly on violence. If said power becomes distributed to other parties, it becomes moot. How that power is wielded, and with what intent are separate discussions, but the power itself is core to the idea of government. I feel like the idea that "The US government wants to have certain powers, and wants no one else to have them" is just baked into the fact that it is the US government, and should neither surprise nor alarm anyone who isn't an Anarchist.
- mrobot 5y ago> Is there any other way to read into the government's authority at large? The entire premise of government is that is assumes power over others. Monopoly on violence. Ya, monopoly on violence by... who exactly? Who is wielding the power in the government? Afghanistan was horrible, right? But US just kinda let that go on for 20 years or whatever. News didn't really talk about it. That's kind of like... a lot of suffering while just pretending nothing is happening. I guess if it was you wielding the power in any real way, or i mean if the people who represented you cared about what you thought, they might have checked in to update you and see what you thought. But they didn't, so... wonder what happened there. And since we are talking about violence, i guess we all agree constructing dragnet surveillance with no regard for human and civil rights is violent, right? Also, monopoly on violence, you mean over other states right? So then the other states... don't have a monopoly, or? Isn't that just imperialism? I've never heard that phrase used this way, i usually hear it used as monopoly on violence over the people (which the US absolutely is but will never admit because then they wouldn't be able to call every non-US gov in the world 'authoritiarian'). I guess you might be saying monopoly over so-called 'enemy states', but like i said it US is touted as such a world-renowned and representative democracy, and most people don't even understand anything about 'enemy states'. Really, they are mostly just blindly nationalistic or bask in the high standard of living afforded them with a warm and convenient lack of awareness about what is going on in the world (retirement funds did well due to that war, that's nice). Or maybe they went into some detail but it was inside a carefully crafted investigation bubble, usually under threat of losing their job or burned as a witch for having the wrong thoughts about an evil enemy if they could influence someone. Anyway, in such a situation, i hope we can agree that the state should not just blindly exercise violence for a 'monopoly'. Who said so? How was the decision acted upon? To what end? How much violence? Which kinds are ok, which are off-limits? What effect is it gonna have on the people? Ok, so wait we get to comment on this particular export situation. Great. Despite the fact that i've heard people say even well-reasoned and popular adversarial comments in these little situations do next to nothing, we are not addressing the overall problem. People need to know the big picture of how this will be used. Did we ever even agree to surveillance in the first place, do we agree with who we've been told our enemies are? Do we agree with violating peoples' rights? Whose? Why? You know... very basic questions that will never be asked. Request for comment, ya, ok. Thanks. Also, if there's a request for comment on something, all people need to be made aware of the request through some very well-publicized channel. Is there one? I don't think so. No one bothers building such a channel because building one would make their entire political and military racket less profitable not to mention eat away at the neighbordhood of makebelieve. > If said power becomes distributed to other parties, it becomes moot. How that power is wielded, and with what intent are separate discussions, but the power itself is core to the idea of government. You have like some premise that all power constructed by the US is legitimate? I don't understand. We never agreed to wire up the whole world like this and it is pretty clear at this point that no one else did either. Ok. Now it's constructed, what to do? The proper answer is, i guess, to destroy the technology and not move forward, right? Since it's construction and deployment was done in secret? If they didn't want to waste resources they should maybe not build illegal things that take lots of resources using stolen public funds? > I feel like the idea that "The US government wants to have certain powers, and wants no one else to have them" is just baked into the fact that it is the US government, and should neither surprise nor alarm anyone who isn't an Anarchist. I guess it just smells like fascism to me when you submit to this without like... actually thinking about the specifics of each power? Or letting them just spread illegal shit around the world? Maybe i misunderstand. This all seems weird.