Meet The Ex-NSA And Ex-Unit 8200 Spies Cashing In On Security Fears

Posted on by

From left to right: Ted Schlein, Lior Div, Jay Kaplan, Eran Barak, Oren Falkowitz, and Rob Seger

By Kashmir Hill and Thomas Fox-Brewster

Before Edward Snowden smashed its digital doors wide open, the National Security Agency was seen as the mysterious keeper of an arsenal of dark-voodoo hacking weapons. Now we know the truth: NSA employees are almost too good at what they doas are their counterparts at Israels elite military signal intelligence group, Unit 8200. Unlike people at most government agencies, NSAers and Unit 8200 alums include world experts in their craft, in this case hacking and defending networks and devices. With data breaches now a daily news item, a stint at either agency has become rsum gold for entrepreneurs. Some agency folks are leaving more out of a moral duty to restore some balance back to the private sector. In the last year ex-NSA founders have snagged $9 million for bug-bounty firm Synack, $2.5 million for attack-detection firm Area 1 Security and $10.3 million for e-mail encryption play Virtru. I think its a direct correlation to Snowden, says Ted Schlein, a veteran cybersecurity venture investor at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. The path from spy to startup is also in full swing in Israel, where entrepreneurs envy the earlier success of 8200 alums such as Gil Shwed and Marius Nacht, the billionaire cofounders of Check Point Software, and Nir Zuk, founder of Palo Alto Networks (market value: $6.6 billion). Here are some of the more high-profile defectors and players in the spy-versus-spy game.

1. LEV KADYSHEVITCH, Head Of Research, Biocatch Its algorithms determine the identity of users based on how they interact with apps, exploiting research on human response to certain phenomena, such as the brief disappearance of a mouse cursor. The 8200-alum-packed firm has $14 million in funding.

2. GIORA ENGEL, Cofounder, LightCyber With his Unit 8200 buddy Michael Mumcuoglu he established LightCyber in 2011 to detect breaches using a network appliance that flags strange-looking traffic. It has raised $12 million to date from VCs and Check Points billionaire cofounder Marius Nacht.

3. TED SCHLEIN, Managing Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Schlein did not belong to either spy agency but he recognizes their potential. Silicon Valleys top cybersecurity financier recently backed two NSAer firms: Synack and Area 1 Security. The portrayal of the NSA doing things that are bad is not making it the hot place to work inside the intelligence community. I think a lot of their creativity is being curtailed, says Schlein. As a VC, I think its wonderful. As a citizen of the U.S., Id make a different argument.

4. LIOR DIV, CEO, CybeReason The Unit 8200 alum moved his startup from Israel to Boston to tap talent and a bigger market. Its software infers the presence of an attack under way and displays the situation in an easy-to-grasp graphical interface. Div raised $4.6 million earlier this year from Charles River Ventures.

5. JAY KAPLAN and 10. MARK KUHR,Cofounders, Synack Kaplan and Mark Kuhr, both 28, spent four years in offensive security at NSAs counterterrorism division, hacking around for weak spots and finding plenty to exploit. They quit early last year and quickly raised $1.5 million to launch Synack, an army of several hundred freelancers who get paid if they find bugs in clients codesexcept this time the bugs get fixed. We dont work for the NSA anymore. We wouldnt leave a vulnerability or anything like that, says Kaplan. But we would turn away Chinas elite hacking force as a customer.

6. ERAN BARAK, CEO and cofounder, Hexadite Barak was a five-year veteran and officer at Unit 8200 before going into business earlier this year. Hexadite plans to bring automated incident response to the masses. It already has four customers in Israel and the U.S. YL Ventures backed Barak and his colleagues with $2.5 million.

Link:

Meet The Ex-NSA And Ex-Unit 8200 Spies Cashing In On Security Fears

Posted in NSA

NRA News Cam & Co | Holly Fisher on Guns and Her Sudden Internet Fame, August 30, 2014 – Video

Posted on by


NRA News Cam Co | Holly Fisher on Guns and Her Sudden Internet Fame, August 30, 2014
At the Defending the American Dream Summit in Dallas, Cameron Gray talks to Holly Fisher about the Second Amendment, her sudden Internet fame, and her new show "Reviving America with Holly...

By: NRA

See original here:

NRA News Cam & Co | Holly Fisher on Guns and Her Sudden Internet Fame, August 30, 2014 - Video

Extremism in defense of re-election

Posted on by

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Shutterstock.com

Enlarge photo

WASHINGTON Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans' 1964 presidential nomination, said "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," Democrats have been decrying Republican "extremism." Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution's architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class's convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as "relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats' amendment says: "Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," and may "prohibit" corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money "to influence elections," which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed "reasonable" will surely serve incumbents' interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment's most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. The one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." And that no Fortune 100 corporation "appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles."

The rest is here:

Extremism in defense of re-election

George Will Eviscerating the 1st Amendment is extremism

Posted on by

SINCE Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. Last week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

Go here to see the original:

George Will Eviscerating the 1st Amendment is extremism

Will: Group of senators tries to 'improve' First Amendment

Posted on by

Published: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 3:22 p.m.

Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans' 1964 presidential nomination, said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," Democrats have been decrying Republican "extremism."

Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution's architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class' convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it 223 years ago, states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as "relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections." But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech.

The Democrats' amendment states: "Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections," and may "prohibit" corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money "to influence elections," which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits would be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed "reasonable" would surely serve incumbents' interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this "improvement" of James Madison's First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It stated only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment's most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a "dangerous intrusion on free speech." And that no Fortune 100 corporation "appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles."

See the rest here:

Will: Group of senators tries to 'improve' First Amendment

Do We Want To See Beheading Videos Banned?

Posted on by

She said she came from another country where she had her own culture and own religion, but because of America's First Amendment, she could practice her religion here freely.

This was the sentiment expressed by a student in my First Amendment-related course, The Media: Freedom and Power.

For nearly the past two decades, the first oral presentation assignment has been for students to recite the First Amendment and briefly describe what it means to them. But for some reason her words particularly resonated amid the tremors of the Islamic group ISIS in the Middle East.

ISIS. This one name we had not heard of a year ago now conjures images of unmerciful, cruel brutality. Clad in black, they resemble Nazis rolling their way through Europe in World War II, except ISIS is rolling through Iraq delivering on its promise of death to those who don't renounce their religions and convert to theirs.

Seriously? Who does that in this day and age?

The notion of someone being threatened with death for not believing in the religion of another is something just so out of the realm of our reality in America. While we are not a perfect nation, the idea of being killed for one's religious beliefs is not one of our daily worries.

Now, on the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on America, many Americans once again have the threat of a new group on our collective minds. It is brought more to the fore with the beheadings of American journalists Steve Sotloff and James Foley.

Granted, ISIS has been beheading non-Americans for some time as it campaigned through Iraq and Syria. It has also posted videos of mass executions of captured soldiers and civilians. As it happens so often, it is when the victims are like us in this case Americans and for those in journalism, journalists that the brutality takes on a chillier chill of ice that glazes the soul.

I had purposely avoided seeing the videos depicting the beheadings of Sotloff and Foley. When writing this piece, however, I decided to take a look to see just how horrible the act was. But I could not find it. YouTube pulled the actual depictions of the beheadings. I looked for some time and still did not find it.

I suppose I could have kept looking and I might have found it somewhere on the Internet, but it was somewhat of a relief not to have to brace myself for what was done to them.

Read more:

Do We Want To See Beheading Videos Banned?

Browse Anonymously, Browse Safely – The App Center

Posted on by

Tor Browser is based off of the Firefox project, and is very similar in most aspect to the regular Firefox browser. The big difference though, is that all traffic is routed through Tor. This means you can be sure that your time spent browsing online is anonymous and safe.

The Tor Project is an open source project that was created to help people browse the Internet safely. This has been used in a wide variety of aplications, ranging from helping bypass firewalls in countries like China to ensuring safe communications between diplomats. But with the increasing pressure on everyone to keep basic online browsing private from markters, governments, and other snoops, it is starting to be more commonly used in everyday life for many people.

Tor works by channeling your traffic through a multi-step encryption across a globally-distributed servers. This means that not only your identity is completely hidden from the website/onlien service you are trying to connect to, it is close to impossible for anyone to intercept and read the communication en route.

With Tor browser, you can now get all of the powerful security in Tor, but with the ease of a common web browser. If you are interested in learning more about the Tor network and how it works, we highly recommend reading through their explanation.

Follow this link:

Browse Anonymously, Browse Safely - The App Center

Cryptocurrency Round-Up: Apple Pay Boosts Bitcoin, Nakamoto Negotiates With Hacker

Posted on by

Cryptocurrency markets have been boosted by news that Apple is introducing its own mobile payments system.IBTimes UK

Bitcoin and other major cryptocurrencies have seen an upturn in their fortunes over the last 24 hours, with the top-ten mineable coins all seeing positive movement in the markets.

Of the big players, bitcoin, litecoin, dogecoin, peercoin, and darkcoin all increased in price by between 2% and 9%.

This could be, at least in part, down to Apple's announcement yesterday that it is introducing a new mobile payments toolthat could greater facilitate digital currency transactions in the future.

Bitcoin boosted by Apple Pay

Alongside new phonesand a smartwatch, Apple also announced yesterday that it was moving into the mobile-payments market with the launch of Apple Pay.

"One-touch checkout, no card number entry, no need to type addresses, no card information shared with merchant," Tim Cook announced at the Cupertino event.

Apple Pay will be used on the iPhone 6 and 6 PlusApple

Apple Pay uses near-field communication (NFC) technology to enable smooth financial transactions. Although bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not explicitly mentioned, Apple did recently lift its ban on bitcoin apps.

Prominent members of the bitcoin community have speculated that despite Apple Pay's reliance on traditional financial infrastructure, bitcoin payments could well be integrated in the future.

Continued here:

Cryptocurrency Round-Up: Apple Pay Boosts Bitcoin, Nakamoto Negotiates With Hacker

The Bitcoin Group #43 — Bitcoin Margin? — NXT Theft — Albertsons Hacked — eBay Lift airBNB BT – Video

Posted on by


The Bitcoin Group #43 -- Bitcoin Margin? -- NXT Theft -- Albertsons Hacked -- eBay Lift airBNB BT
Donate: 18EQEiQBK1X2DyDL5Y18j78iw4NuNHoLej Featuring Andreas Antonopoulos (http://antonopoulos.com/), Will Pangman (http://bitcoinmke.org), Kristov Atlas (h...

By: thebitcoingroup

Read more:

The Bitcoin Group #43 -- Bitcoin Margin? -- NXT Theft -- Albertsons Hacked -- eBay Lift airBNB BT - Video

2. Bitcoin Conference – Emotional Targeting: A new way to market Bitcoin? – Video

Posted on by


2. Bitcoin Conference - Emotional Targeting: A new way to market Bitcoin?
The german Bitcoin Conference is a community driven conference. Great Speakers and great Networking for the industry. Invation only. More Information: http://www.bitcoin-konferenz.de.

By: NERDHUB

Go here to read the rest:

2. Bitcoin Conference - Emotional Targeting: A new way to market Bitcoin? - Video

2. Bitcoin Conference – Panel-Discussion: Crowdfunding & Financial Innovation on the Blockchain – Video

Posted on by


2. Bitcoin Conference - Panel-Discussion: Crowdfunding Financial Innovation on the Blockchain
The german Bitcoin Conference is a community driven conference. Great Speakers and great Networking for the industry. Invation only. More Information: http://www.bitcoin-konferenz.de.

By: NERDHUB

Continued here:

2. Bitcoin Conference - Panel-Discussion: Crowdfunding & Financial Innovation on the Blockchain - Video

2. Bitcoin Conference – Best Practice: 1 Year Bitcoin at Bigpoint Lessons learned – Video

Posted on by


2. Bitcoin Conference - Best Practice: 1 Year Bitcoin at Bigpoint Lessons learned
The german Bitcoin Conference is a community driven conference. Great Speakers and great Networking for the industry. Invation only. More Information: http://www.bitcoin-konferenz.de.

By: NERDHUB

Read more:

2. Bitcoin Conference - Best Practice: 1 Year Bitcoin at Bigpoint Lessons learned - Video