How to Block Yahoo Mail from Scanning, Collecting, and Selling Your Data

Believe it or not, there still are millions of users out there using a Yahoo Mail account, and according to the Wall Street Journal (August 28, 2018) Yahoo Mail is still scanning, collecting, and selling users’ data to advertisers, and according to people familiar with the matter, some 200 million inboxes are being involved.

Officials working for Oath, the company that the new Yahoo owner Verizon created last year, say this is by no means unexpected behavior. An email service “is an expensive system,” Doug Sharp, Oath’s vice president of data, measurements and insights, said, so it makes sense for the company to try to generate some money using your data.

You can opt-out of this scanning of your e-mail (although Yahoo could scan your e-mail, regardless of your preference). Opting out isn’t a very straightforward thing to do because Yahoo has decided to hide the settings in this regard deep in its account information and not in the Yahoo Mail settings screen.

To opt-out you need to do is to open the Ad Interest Manager page where all the options are grouped. Needless to say, you need to be logged in with the Yahoo account that you want to update.

In the Your Advertising Choices, there are two different tabs called Across the web and On Yahoo. Both of them need to be changed – make sure you do this because disabling just one leaves the data scanning active.

Open each tab manually and click the button that reads Opt Out. Once you do this, the page should refresh automatically and the button should switch to Opt In, letting you know that the personalized ads have been blocked.

As you can see, the method is by no means intuitive, and the average person is unlikely to discover it unless reading about Yahoo’s questionable practices in the media. For the time being, however, Yahoo has no intention to change the way users can opt out of the email scanning.
--

CA Officials Admit to Using License Plate Readers to Monitor Welfare Recipients

According to a Gizmodo article (August 13, 2018) -- Since 2016, Sacramento County officials have been accessing license plate reader data to track welfare recipients. Investigators working fraud cases have used the data for two years on a “case-by-case” basis.

License plate readers (LPR) are essentially cameras that upload photographs to a searchable database of images of license plates. Each image captured by these cameras is annotated with information on the registered owner, the make and model of the car, and time-stamped GPS data on where it was last spotted. Those with access, usually police, can search the database using a full or partial license plate number, a date or time, year and model of a car, and so on. 

Anyone with access to that data could use it track where someone drove and when, provided they were scanned by the LPR. The privacy concerns are obvious, as where people go reveals a lot of privileged information about them. For instance, they could be visiting an STD clinic, an immigration office, or a relative’s homes.

Welfare fraud is statistically speaking, extremely rare. In 2012, the DHA found only 500 cases of fraud among Sacramento’s 193,000 recipients. Mike Herald, director of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, stated: “I think we’re only picking on a group of people who are extremely poor and they want to create a perception with the public that there is a real big fraud problem with welfare programs.”

The Sacramento Bee reports that county welfare fraud investigators with the Department of Human Assistance accessed the data over a thousand times in two years.
--

 

Don’t Let Trojan Horses Inside Your Connected Home (Security Video)

This security awareness video, Don’t Let Trojan Horses Inside Your Connected Home, dramatizes home a cyber-criminal might gain access to your home through the Internet of Things.

The video is a useful lead in for security awareness training.

For additional information, check out the Ted talk:

What Your Smart Devices Know (and Share) About You
 

Five Eyes Nations Quietly Demand Government Access to Encrypted Data

According to the New York Times (September 4, 2018) the Trump administration and its closest intelligence partners have quietly warned technology firms that they will demand “lawful access” to all encrypted emails, text messages and voice communications, threatening to compel compliance if the private companies refuse to voluntarily provide the information to the governments.

The threat was issued last week by the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the so-called Five Eyes nations that broadly share intelligence. Collectively, they have been frustrated by the spread of encrypted apps on cellphones and the ability to send encrypted messages through social media and, most prominently, on Apple’s iPhones.

At the core of the dispute is whether Apple, Facebook, Google and others should be compelled to provide a “back door” to their products that would allow government investigators to gain access to all communications, with a legal order.

It is far from clear that Congress is ready to take on the technology companies on this issue, especially because more companies and citizens are turning to encryption to protect sensitive conversations and financial transfers.

Ordinary Americans are also increasingly using encrypted apps to conduct delicate conversations to prevent monitoring by the government or others.

“Cybersecurity experts have repeatedly proven that it’s impossible to create any back door that couldn’t be discovered — and exploited — by bad actors,” Facebook said in the blog post. “It’s why weakening any part of encryption weakens the whole security ecosystem.”

The debate was fueled in part by Apple’s refusal to unlock an iPhone used by one of the attackers in a 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., as demanded by the F.B.I. A year earlier, Mr. Comey had cited “concerns” about encryption apps that he described as “companies marketing something expressly to allow people to hold themselves beyond the law.”

In response, Tim Cook, Apple’s chief executive, contended that once phones or messaging systems were designed to allow legal access, hackers from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere would use the breach to pry their way in, destroying technology devised to protect privacy.
--

Requiring corporations like Apple, Facebook, Google, and the like to include a backdoor to break encryption in their products is an extremely bad idea. Any backdoor that allows encryption to be bypassed with a court order will sooner or later (probably sooner) be hacked allowing unauthorized access to sensitive, encrypted information by criminals, and foreign powers.

There simply is no good technical means to allow only the "good guys" to break encryption and still keep the "bad guys" out. And as we have too often seen, the government is not always the good guys.

I note too that while strong encryption will keep the government out of your private information (at least for a time) most cases do not hinge on access to encrypted data.  In 2017 there were only 102 cases of encryption encounter in wiretaps, and of those officials were not able to decipher the plain text of the communications in only 37 cases. The use of encryption simply isn't keeping the government for conducting effective law enforcement, but what the use of encryption does do quite well is keep the government from conducting mass surveillance programs - and this is the real issue at hand!

According to security guru Bruce Schneier, "The Five Eyes -- the intelligence consortium of the rich English-speaking countries (the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand) -- have issued a "Statement of Principles on Access to Evidence and Encryption" where they claim their needs for surveillance outweigh everyone's needs for security and privacy." 

Privacy and security expert, Cory Doctorow stated, "Oh for fuck's sake, not this fucking bullshit again.   America, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Australia are in a surveillance alliance called The Five Eyes, through which they share much of their illegally harvested surveillance data. In a recently released Statement of Principles on Access to Evidence and Encryption, the Five Eyes powers have demanded, again, that strong cryptography be abolished and replaced with defective cryptography so that they can spy on bad guys. They defend this by saying "Privacy is not absolute.""

 

 

NATO Innovation Challenge

The NATO Innovation Challenge lets you participate in projects and submit ideas that support NATO missions. Anyone can compete in the open innovation events organized in the NATO Innovation Network. So doing, you contribute to solving NATO priority issues, get NATO-wide exposure and get the chance to win prizes and support for the development of your solutions.

Most Violent and Property Crimes Reported to Police in the U.S. Go Unsolved

According to Pew Research (March 1, 2017) only about half of the violent crimes and a third of the property crimes that occur in the United States each year are reported to police. And most of the crimes that are reported don’t result in the arrest, charging and prosecution of a suspect, according to government statistics.

Even when violent and property crimes are reported to police, they’re often not solved – at least based on a measure known as the clearance rate. That’s the share of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution. In 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, only 46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police in the U.S. were cleared, according to FBI data.

Police clearance rates also vary significantly by crime type. Only 13% of burglaries, 13% of motor vehicle thefts and 22% of larcenies and thefts were cleared in 2015. By comparison, police cleared 29% of robberies, 38% of rapes and 54% of aggravated assaults in 2015.

When it comes to deadly crimes, Chicago has drawn widespread attention recently for its historically low murder clearance rate in 2016. But murder is actually the crime that’s most likely to be solved, at least when looking at national statistics. In 2015, 62% of murders and non-negligent homicides in the U.S. were cleared. That rate hasn’t changed much since 1995, but it’s far lower than in 1965, when more than 90% of murders in the U.S. were solved.
--

So, why is it that most crimes in the United States go unsolved? The men and women that make up our police forces certainly want to solve crimes and catch bad guys. Police training in the United States may not be the best in the world, but it far from being the worst and certainly not what anyone would rate as poor quality. There are very knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced detectives and investigators on or available to every police force.

There are many reasons that police may be failing to solve crimes, but one reason may be that departments are not focused on proactive policing and crime solving activities. Police departments have become cesspools of politics and special interests, where employees are subjected to witch-hunt investigations, suspensions, and terminations for any mistake, and too often for just doing their jobs.

Recent news reports highlight the issues affecting many departments:

Behind The Scenes, Lacey, WA Police Department is a ‘Mess,’ Union Says

Baltimore Cops 'Stopped Noticing Crime' After Freddie Gray Incident

Portland Police Union President Says City 'A Cesspool' Amid Failed Policies

Seattle Cops Flee the Force in 'Mass Exodus' Because of Politics

Police are no longer focused on fighting crime, and they are not trusted by the people in the communities where they work. Under these conditions it is little wonder that actual crimes go unsolved.

Deadly Insider Attacks on US Troops Won’t End, Experts Say

In the wake of the second deadly insider attack in Afghanistan this year, experts say that these incidents are an unfortunate reality of the train, advise and assist mission: that U.S. troops cannot avoid living among killers in disguise.

The latest suspected green-on-blue attack occurred Monday. Killed in the attack was Command Sgt. Major Timothy Bolyard, the top enlisted soldier for the Army’s new 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade, a unit designed for Afghan advisory missions. One other service member, who was not identified, was wounded. Afghan security personnel or insurgents wearing Afghan uniforms are suspected in the attack.

In July, an insider attack killed U.S. Army Cpl. Joseph Maciel of South Gate, California and wounded two other U.S. service members, who were operating in the Tarin Kowt district of Afghanistan's southcentral Uruzgan province.

Since 2007, insider attacks have killed 157 coalition personnel, according to the Modern War Institute at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

"It's going to happen," Jason Dempsey, an adjunct fellow for the Center for New American Security, told Military.com. "You are talking about a security force of about 300,000-plus. You've got changing loyalties, you've got desertion rates up to 25 percent ... dudes are flowing out of the Afghan military nonstop.

"There is absolutely no way to stop it."  (Military.com, September 5, 2018)
--

With all due respect to Dr. Dempsey, may I suggest that we can in fact stop or at least mitigate these type of attacks with an improved force protection posture.

To do this we need force protection personnel who are actually qualified to advise on these matters (a 40-hour course is not a qualification) and who have experience operating in hostile and non-permissive environments. Have your force protection advisors ever deployed to a combat zone? Have they spent years living and working overseas? Do they at least hold advanced degrees in security management, in intelligence, in strategic studies and analysis?

Too often force protection is an additional duty, something that gets looked at as an afterthought. Or even worse, force protection is based on what can be found with a Google search and little else.

Cut and paste force protection results in dead Service Members.

 

 

Russian Feminist Blogger Charged With Inciting Hate Toward Men

A Russian feminist blogger has been charged with inciting hatred toward men on social media, less than two weeks after she told rights organizations she was being investigated for extremism.

Lyubov Kalugina, a self-described radical feminist,  faces up to 5 years behind bars under Article 282 [Russian Law], which bans the “incitement of national, racial or religious enmity. In late August that she was subject of a pre-investigation check into her social media posts after an anonymous man had complained that her posts insulted him as a male.

Russian activists, social networks companies and even legislators have criticized anti-extremism charges which they say sweep up ordinary users who posted insensitive texts or images on their social media pages. (Moscow Times, September 5, 2018)

Translated from Russian:

Lyubov Kalugina, a 31-year-old blogger in the Siberian city of Omsk, said this week that investigators have opened a preliminary probe into material dating back to 2013 that she posted on the Russian social-networking site VKontakte.

The probe comes amid a mounting public debate in Russia about a broad crackdown on online speech in recent years -- including reposts and likes on social media sites such as Facebook -- that critics say authorities are using to stymie dissent and boost conviction rates.

Rights groups have tracked a spike in the number of extremism and hate-speech cases in Russia over social-media posts in recent years, including content critical of the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church that rights watchdogs say is constitutionally protected speech.
--

While the Russian constitution provides for free speech [Article 29 "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech. Everyone shall have the right to seek, get, transfer, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means. The freedom of the mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be prohibited."] It also states that "Propaganda or campaigning inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife is impermissible." Just where that line between freedom of thought and expression and inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife should be drawn is what these cases are about.

It is not the place of the government, any government, to censor what people can say and what people can read, and what people can post on-line.

Don't Store Information That Serves No Legal Or Business Purpose

Data Privacy is the right to control the collection, sharing and destruction of information that can be traced to an individual. In general, data privacy is more comprehensively protected outside of the United States, particularly in the European Union member states, where the Data Protection Directive provides significant restrictions on the processing and transfer of personal data, and other countries including Argentina, Canada, Israel, Switzerland and Uruguay. In the US, the approach to data privacy is generally contractual, and does not enjoy the same level of generic legal protections. Disparate laws in the United States do, however, mandate protections for specific types of data or target different groups. Examples include: patient records under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), financial information under the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), and prohibitions on the collection of information about children younger than 13 years old, under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”).

In light of the intensifying threat environment that businesses operate in, a security best practice is to: only keep what you need. In other words, in the absence of legal or regulatory requirement to store data, don’t keep data that serves no purpose.

A sound strategic objective of a corporate organization is to dispose of information no longer required for compliance, legal hold purposes, or in the ordinary course of business. If there is no legal retention obligation, information should be disposed as soon as the cost and risk of retaining the information is outweighed by the likely business value of retaining the information…Typically, the business value decreases and the cost and risk increase as information ages.”

The courts have also held that a business that destroys data as part of its normal data retention / data destruction policy cannot be held liable for doing so as long as there was no legal duty to preserve the data to begin with. -- See:  Barnett v. Deere & Co., No. 2:15-CV-2-KS-MTP, 2016 WL 4544052 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31, 2016) (declining to impose sanctions for the destruction of relevant documents pursuant to Defendant’s document retention policy at a time when there was no duty to preserve and, in its discussion of bad faith, noted that the court “does ‘not draw an inference of bad faith when documents are destroyed under a routine policy’”); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18771, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2003) (“It goes without saying that a party can only be sanctioned for destroying evidence if it had a duty to preserve it.”)
--

How Refusing to Give Police Your Facebook Password Can Lead to Prison

A 24-year-old murder suspect in the UK was sentenced to 14 months in prison on Friday for refusing to hand over his Facebook account password to detectives who are investigating the death of 13-year-old schoolgirl.

Stephen Nicholson, a friend of the girl's family, was allegedly in contact with the girl on Facebook the morning of her disappearance. Police took him into custody and asked him – twice – for his password so they could check out the alleged conversation and whatever other content might help the investigation.

Nicholson has been jailed not for the murder, but for his refusal to cooperate with the detectives and let them into his account.

As he serves his jail term with his password safely hidden from detectives, Stephen Nicholson will not be helping to bring anybody that justice. But as legal firm Saunders Law pointed out to the Independent, that could be a self-protecting course for him to take: if disclosure of his Facebook password led to incriminating data, the 14 months jail time for his RIPA offense might look like chump change in comparison to what such incriminating data might lead to.

In contrast with the UK’s RIPA and Terrorism Act, the US has a patchwork of laws governing password disclosure. Judges can and do order disclosure, such as in the case of a former sergeant of the Philadelphia Police Department is Francis Rawls accused of storing child abuse images who is in jail indefinitely, until he lets authorities into his hard drive.

The legal landscape in the US seems to change by the minute, though. Within the past two weeks, a Court of Appeals ruled that forcing a woman to unlock her iPhone violates Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, for example.

The ongoing legal debate keeps getting swatted from one end of Fifth Amendment interpretation to the other, as in: Is a password something we know, which would be protected versus a fingerprint, which is something we are, and hence isn’t? And are files on a phone, or content within a Facebook post, similar to paper files in a cabinet, the unlocking of which the authorities can compel?  (Naked Security, September 4, 2018)
--

And now for something completely uncalled for...

Honest Government Ad | Anti Encryption Law (YouTube Video)

 

 

 



 

DoD Identity Awareness Protection and Management Guide

The DoD Identity Awareness, Protection, and Management Guide - May 2016 can help you stay safer on-line and in a digital world.

In March 2018 an updated version of the guide was published, adding an index and some minor changes to settings for social media accounts. In August 2018, the Joint OPSEC Support Element published photos of a March 2018 edition of this guide on Facebook, but has not made a PDF version of the updated guide available to the public.

The 2016 edition of the guide provides useful information that is still applicable today.

Washington Marijuana DUI Tests Completely Arbitrary

According to KIRO 7 News (September 3, 2018) Washington state's traffic safety commission said a recent study found most drivers between 15 and 20 years old in Washington who admitted to driving after getting high on marijuana believed doing so actually made them better drivers.

The safety commission said the most common thing they’re seeing with impaired drivers is people using two or more drugs. The most common combination is alcohol and marijuana.
--

Washington’s DUI statute prohibits driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or “any drug”. 

While an alcohol related DUI is the most common type of DUI charge, people are routinely arrested and charged with driving while being under the influence of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, even prescription medications and over the counter medicines such as cough syrup and cold medicines in combination with alcohol.  It is not a defense to a DUI that one was only taking legal prescription medicines or over the counter drugs.  RCW 46.61.502 prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of any drug or any combination of drugs and alcohol.

On December 6, 2012, the state of Washington enacted a specific Marijuana DUI statute which proscribes driving after having a set limit of THC in the blood stream, establishes administrative licensing consequences, and provides specific funding to enforce the new law.  It is unlawful for drivers to operate a motor vehicle with .05 nanograms or greater of THC in the blood stream as determined by an authorized blood draw and analysis.  Those who are convicted under this statute will face the same DUI penalties as one convicted under the alcohol DUI statute. 

Q13 Fox News reported on July 20, 2017: When the law was enacted, Washington decided on a “per se” DUI threshold of five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood drawn.  Drivers over that number are presumed impaired, and could be charged with a DUI.

The problem, says Washington Traffic Safety Commission research director Staci Hoff, is the number is completely arbitrary. “(The per se blood limit) wasn’t backed by scientific theories then, and it’s not backed by scientific theories now,” Hoff said.

Though the per se limit of alcohol is not perfect, .08 is a better predictor of intoxication than the limit for THC, Hoff says. That's because THC is a fat soluble drug. Chronic users who haven't smoked recently could still exhibit a level of 10 or 20 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood.

The Washington Post had reported on May 10, 2016 that "a report by researchers at the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety said there is no threshold that indicates when a marijuana smoker may be too impaired to drive.

“There is no reliable number that has any meaningful value in terms of predicting impairment,” said Jake Nelson, AAA’s director of traffic safety and advocacy. The AAA Foundation recommends doing away with setting legal limits for THC.

The Reason Foundation (February 22, 2018) stated "As with other non-alcohol drugs, marijuana impairment varies tremendously by individuals, even under the same dose. As with other non-alcohol drugs, marijuana does not break down in the body in a manner that correlates with psychoactivity of the drug (alcohol is the exceptional drug in this regard, not the norm), making chemical testing results [for THC] of little use in determining impairment." 

*** If you know that you have been drinking alcohol or using marijuana - Don't Drive! *** 

If you do get stopped by the police for suspicion of DUI, WA Lawyers generally advise that *** You Should Not Submit to the SFST or PBT. *** These road-side tests are voluntary and submitting to these tests cannot benefit you, but they can provide the police officer with the probable cause needed to arrest you. This includes Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) tests and similar tests conducted by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE).

National Preparedness Month - Get A Kit

Are you prepared for a disaster? To you have supplies on hand to take care of your family for a few days with little or no outside assistance? Do you have a survival kit in your vehicle?

September is National Preparedness Month. Invest a little time and money this month and get a disaster preparedness kit. Build your own kit from scratch, buy a pre-built kit (see links to Amazon below), or perhaps buy a pre-built kit this month and continue to build and expand it with additional supplies over the next few months.

Remember, nobody needs a disaster preparedness kit - until there is a disaster. 

A 6-year-old Olympia Boy Who Claimed That He Was Beaten Up By Bullies Lied

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A 6-year-old Olympia boy whose story of being beaten up by young bullies went viral this week wasn't beaten up after all, investigators say.

Detectives with the Olympia Police Department said they developed information that the boy's story wasn't holding up and the injuries might not have been from an attack. They confirmed those suspicions Thursday.

"The injuries sustained by the child are the result of a fall, which occurred at the apartment complex on the date in question, not an assault," Olympia Police said in a news release Thursday. "As a result, there are no suspects of any age."

The boy's mother said she found her son injured last Wednesday, and that he claimed he stood up to a group of kids who were bullying his friend. He was then beaten with rocks and sticks, kicked, and had sawdust rubbed in his eyes, the boy claimed.

The boy suffered a broken arm, and several cuts and bruises to his face, and had to have surgery to repair a cut above his eye, the mother told KOMO News in an interview last Friday.

The story captured the nation's attention as to the dangers of bullying. A GoFundMe site that had been set up for the family's medical expenses reached over $45,000 before donations were stopped.

Appropriate social services have been notified to ensure the continued welfare of the child involved. Investigators say no charges will be filed due to the boy's age. They also said they have no reason to believe the boy's mom lied.

Police didn't give any further details about how the boy fell.  (KOMO 4 News, August 30, 2018)
--

The child suffered fairly serious injuries as a result of what is now being reported as a fall. He then makes up a lie about being attacked by bullies who beat him with rocks and sticks, kicked him, and rubbed sawdust in his eyes, because he was attempting to defend a friend who was also being bullied.

This seems to be a very complex story for a 6-year-old who has just fallen and broken his arm to run home and tell his mother. There may still be more to this story that is yet unknown...

Cwtch

Many messaging apps (such as Signal, Wire, and WhatsApp) have taken great strides toward making end-to-end encryption pervasive, hiding the contents of our communications from prying eyes. However, most of these tools still collect (or are able to collect) metadata: information about who is speaking, who they are speaking to, when, how often, from where, and more. This information can be used to construct our social graph, track down the people we talk to, and in some instances even infer what we are saying. Law enforcement under oppressive regimes uses these patterns on a daily basis to locate, detain, surveil, and harm our partners, our families, our friends, our comrades. In the words of former NSA director Michael Hayden, “we kill people based on metadata.”

Cwtch is an extension of the metadata resistant protocol Ricochet and supports asynchronous, multi-peer group communications through the use of discardable, untrusted, anonymous infrastructure.

This is a program definitely worth following as it develops.
--

 

EFF Shining a Light on NSA Surveillance

A July 31, 2018 post by the Electronic Frontier Foundation - Eight AT&T Buildings and Ten Years of Litigation: Shining a Light on NSA Surveillance - discusses the on-going surveillance of American citizens by the NSA. The post states in part:

Two reporters recently identified eight AT&T locations in the United States—towering, multi-story buildings—where NSA surveillance occurs on the backbone of the Internet. Their article showed how the agency taps into cables, routers, and switches that handle vast quantities of Internet traffic around the world. Published by The Intercept, the report shines a light on the NSA’s expansive Internet surveillance network housed inside these sometimes-opaque buildings.

As the years press on, the picture becomes clear: the NSA’s mass surveillance operation is deeply embedded inside our country’s Internet and telecommunications infrastructure. Now, thanks to The Intercept’s reporting, we have a better idea of where this surveillance takes place. For many of us, it’s in our own backyards.
--

When discussing national level surveillance, some may say if you have nothing to hide, why does it matter if the government monitors what you do? There are many reasons that a person with nothing to hide might object to being the subject of government surveillance, but I think that foremost among these reasons is that surveillance can be - and too often is - misused.

Heidi Boghosian in her presentation "Spying on Democracy: Government Surveillance Corporate Power and Public Resistance" University of California Television (UCTV) discusses this in some detail.