The Prophecy Club "News Update"

The Prophecy Club "News Update"

Powerful "Flame" cyber weapon found in Iran "Flame can gather data files, remotely change settings on computers, turn on PC microphones to record conversations, take screen shots and log instant messaging chats." (Reuters) - Security experts said on Monday a highly sophisticated computer virus is infecting computers in Iran and other Middle East countries and may have been deployed at least five years ago to engage in state-sponsored cyber espionage. Evidence suggest that the virus, dubbed Flame, may have been built on behalf of the same nation or nations that commissioned the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010, according to Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cyber security software maker that took credit for discovering the infections. Kaspersky researchers said they have yet to determine whether Flame had a specific mission like Stuxnet, and declined to say who they think built it. Iran has accused the United States and Israel of deploying Stuxnet. Cyber security experts said the discovery publicly demonstrates what experts privy to classified information have long known: that nations have been using pieces of malicious computer code as weapons to promote their security interests for several years. "This is one of many, many campaigns that happen all the time and never make it into the public domain," said Alexander Klimburg, a cyber security expert at the Austrian Institute for International Affairs. A cyber security agency in Iran said on its English website that Flame bore a "close relation" to Stuxnet, the notorious computer worm that attacked that country's nuclear program in 2010 and is the first publicly known example of a cyber weapon. Iran's National Computer Emergency Response Team also said Flame might be linked to recent cyber attacks that officials in Tehran have said were responsible for massive data losses on some Iranian computer systems. Kaspersky Lab said it discovered Flame after a U.N. telecommunications agency asked it to analyze data on malicious software across the Middle East in search of the data-wiping virus reported by Iran. STUXNET CONNECTION Experts at Kaspersky Lab and Hungary's Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security who have spent weeks studying Flame said they have yet to find any evidence that it can attack infrastructure, delete data or inflict other physical damage. Yet they said they are in the early stages of their investigations and that they may discover other purposes beyond data theft. It took researchers months to determine the key mysteries behind Stuxnet, including the purpose of modules used to attack a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, Iran. If Kaspersky's findings are validated, Flame could go down in history as the third major cyber weapon uncovered after Stuxnet and its data-stealing cousin Duqu, named after the Star Wars villain. The Moscow-based company is controlled by Russian malware researcher Eugene Kaspersky. It gained notoriety after solving several mysteries surrounding Stuxnet and Duqu. Officials with Symantec Corp and Intel Corp McAfee security division, the top 2 makers of anti-virus software, said they were studying Flame. "It seems to be more complex than Duqu but it's too early to tell its place in history," said Dave Marcus, director of advanced research and threat intelligence with McAfee. Symantec Security Response manager Vikram Thakur said that his company's experts believed there was a "high" probability that Flame was among the most complex pieces of malicious software ever discovered. At least one rival of Kaspersky expressed skepticism. Privately held Webroot said its automatic virus-scanning engines detected Flame in December 2007, but that it did not pay much attention because the code was not particularly menacing. That is partly because it was easy to discover and remove, said Webroot Vice President Joe Jaroch. "There are many more dangerous threats out there today," he said. MAPPING IT OUT Kaspersky's research shows the largest number of infected machines are in Iran, followed by Israel and the Palestinian territories, then Sudan and Syria. The virus contains about 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which caused centrifuges to fail at the Iranian enrichment facility it attacked. It has about 100 times as much code as a typical virus designed to steal financial information, said Kaspersky Lab senior researcher Roel Schouwenberg. Flame can gather data files, remotely change settings on computers, turn on PC microphones to record conversations, take screen shots and log instant messaging chats. Kaspersky Lab said Flame and Stuxnet appear to infect machines by exploiting the same flaw in the Windows operating system and that both viruses employ a similar way of spreading. That means the teams that built Stuxnet and Duqu might have had access to the same technology as the team that built Flame, Schouwenberg said. He said that a nation state would have the capability to build such a sophisticated tool, but declined to comment on which countries might do so. The question of who built flame is sure to become a hot topic in the security community as well as the diplomatic world. There is some controversy over who was behind Stuxnet and Duqu. Some experts suspect the United States and Israel, a view that was laid out in a January 2011 New York Times report that said it came from a joint program begun around 2004 to undermine what they say are Iran's efforts to build a bomb. The U.S. Defense Department, CIA, State Department, National Security Agency, and U.S. Cyber Command declined to comment. Hungarian researcher Boldizsar Bencsath, whose Laboratory of Cryptography and Systems Security first discovered Duqu, said his analysis shows that Flame may have been active for at least five years and perhaps eight years or more. That implies it was active long before Stuxnet. "It's huge and overly complex, which makes me think it's a first-generation data gathering tool," said Neil Fisher, vice president for global security solutions at Unisys Corp. "We are going to find more of these things over time." Others said cyber weapons technology has inevitably advanced since Flame was built. "The scary thing for me is: if this is what they were capable of five years ago, I can only think what they are developing now," Mohan Koo, managing director of British-based Dtex Systems cyber security company. Some experts speculated that the discovery of the virus may have dealt a psychological blow to its victims, on top of whatever damage Flame may have already inflicted to their computers. "If a government initiated the attack it might not care that the attack was discovered," said Klimburg of the Austrian Institute for International Affairs. "The psychological effect of the penetration could be nearly as profitable as the intelligence gathered."

Students will be tracked via chips in IDs Northside Independent School District plans to track students next year on two of its campuses using technology implanted in their student identification cards in a trial that could eventually include all 112 of its schools and all of its nearly 100,000 students. District officials said the Radio Frequency Identification System (RFID) tags would improve safety by allowing them to locate students — and count them more accurately at the beginning of the school day to help offset cuts in state funding, which is partly based on attendance. Northside, the largest school district in Bexar County, plans to modify the ID cards next year for all students attending John Jay High School, Anson Jones Middle School and all special education students who ride district buses. That will add up to about 6,290 students. The school board unanimously approved the program late Tuesday but, in a rarity for Northside trustees, they hotly debated it first, with some questioning it on privacy grounds. State officials and national school safety experts said the technology was introduced in the past decade but has not been widely adopted. Northside's deputy superintendent of administration, Brian Woods, who will take over as superintendent in July, defended the use of RFID chips at Tuesday's meeting, comparing it to security cameras. He stressed that the program is only a pilot and not permanent. “We want to harness the power of (the) technology to make schools safer, know where our students are all the time in a school, and increase revenues,” district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said. “Parents expect that we always know where their children are, and this technology will help us do that.” Chip readers on campuses and on school buses can detect a student's location but can't track them once they leave school property. Only authorized administrative officials will have access to the information, Gonzalez said. “This way we can see if a student is at the nurse's office or elsewhere on campus, when they normally are counted for attendance in first period,” he said. Gonzalez said the district plans to send letters to parents whose students are getting the the RFID-tagged ID cards. He said officials understand that students could leave the card somewhere, throwing off the system. They cost $15 each, and if lost, a student will have to pay for a new one. Parents interviewed outside Jay and Jones as they picked up their children Thursday were either supportive, skeptical or offended. Veronica Valdorrinos said she would be OK if the school tracks her daughter, a senior at Jay, as she always fears for her safety. Ricardo and Juanita Roman, who have two daughters there, said they didn't like that Jay was targeted. Gonzalez said the district picked schools with lower attendance rates and staff willing to pilot the tags. Some parents said they understood the benefits but had reservations over privacy. “I would hope teachers can help motivate students to be in their seats instead of the district having to do this,” said Margaret Luna, whose eighth-grade granddaughter at Jones will go to Jay next year. “But I guess this is what happens when you don't have enough money.” The district plans to spend $525,065 to implement the pilot program and $136,005 per year to run it, but it will more than pay for itself, predicted Steve Bassett, Northside's assistant superintendent for budget and finance. If successful, Northside would get $1.7 million next year from both higher attendance and Medicaid reimbursements for busing special education students, he said. But the payoff could be a lot bigger if the program goes districtwide, Bassett said. He said the program was one way the growing district could respond to the Legislature's cuts in state education funding. Northside trimmed its budget last year by $61.4 million. Two school districts in the Houston area — Spring and Santa Fe ISDs — have used the technology for several years and have reported gains of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for improved attendance. Spring ISD spokeswoman Karen Garrison said the district, one-third the size of Northside, hasn't had any parent backlash. In Tuesday's board debate, trustee M'Lissa M. Chumbley said she worried that parents might feel the technology violated their children's privacy rights. She didn't want administrators tracking teachers' every move if they end up outfitted with the tags, she added. “I think this is overstepping our bounds and is inappropriate,” Chumbley said. “I'm honestly uncomfortable about this.” Northside has to walk a tightrope in selling the idea to parents, some of whom could be turned off by the revenue incentive, said Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a Cleveland-based consulting firm. The American Civil Liberties Union fought the use of the technology in 2005 at a rural elementary school in California and helped get the program canceled, said Kirsten Bokenkamp, an ACLU spokeswoman in Texas. She said concerns about the tags include privacy and the risks of identity theft or kidnapping if somebody hacks into the system. Texas Education Agency spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said no state law or policy regulates the use of such devices and the decision is up to local districts.

Russia tests new missile, in warning over U.S. shield (Reuters) - Russia tested a new long-range missile on Wednesday that should improve its ability to penetrate missile defense systems, the military said, in Moscow's latest warning to Washington over deployment of a missile shield in Europe. The Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) was successfully launched from the Plesetsk facility in northwestern Russia and its dummy warhead landed on target on the Kamchatka peninsula on the Pacific coast, the Defense Ministry said. The new missile is expected to improve Russia's offensive arsenal, "including by increasing the capability to overcome missile defense systems that are being created", the ministry said in a statement. Russia opposes a missile shield the United States and NATO are deploying in Europe, saying it will be able to intercept Russian warheads by about 2018, weakening Moscow's nuclear arsenal and upsetting the post-Cold War balance of power. The United States says the system is intended to counter a potential threat from Iran and poses no risk to Russia, but the Kremlin has rejected those assurances and stepped up criticism of the system, to be deployed in four phases by about 2020. Last autumn, then-President Dmitry Medvedev outlined steps Russia was taking to neutralize the perceived threat, including upgrades to Russia's offensive nuclear arsenal. Russia and the United States are still in talks to agree cooperation on missile defense, but Moscow has warned of further measures if no such deal is reached and Washington refuses to provide binding guarantees its system will not threaten Russia. At a conference in Moscow this month, senior General Nikolai Makarov said Russia could carry out pre-emptive strikes on future NATO missile defense installations to protect its security. The European system is to include interceptor missile installations in Poland and Romania and a radar in Turkey as well as interceptors and radars on ships based in the Mediterranean Sea. Russia usually names its weapons, but the Defense Ministry made no mention of a name for the new missile. It said it could be fired from a mobile launcher. Missile defense has troubled ties between Russia and the United States since the Cold War. The dispute over the current project has developed despite President Barack Obama's decision in 2009 to scrap the previous administration's plans for longer-range interceptors, which helped improve relations after a period of growing tension. Western officials say improvements to Russia's ICBM arsenal undermine Moscow's argument that the system will present a threat and suggest the Kremlin wants to use the issue as a bargaining chip in broader talks on nuclear arms cuts. During his 2000-2008 Kremlin term, President Vladimir Putin repeatedly said Russia would improve its offensive nuclear capability in response to U.S. missile defense plans. In 2007, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, now Putin's chief of staff, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying Russia already had weapons that could overcome any current or future missile defense system.

U.N. Summit Will Push for a More Powerful Global Environmental Agency (CNSNews.com) – Ahead of a mammoth United Nations sustainability conference in Rio de Janeiro next month, the Brazilian government has signaled a new push to get the U.N.’s top environmental body upgraded – a push long opposed by the United States. Brazil wants to breathe new life into an initiative -- vigorously promoted since the 1990s by European leaders -- to replace the 40 year-old U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) with a full-fledged “specialized agency,” dubbed the U.N. Environment Organization (UNEO). Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira told a press briefing last Friday that the issue was a priority for her government, but she acknowledged that “there is no consensus in international organizations on the proposal to create an environment agency” during the summit, known as Rio+20. “We are working hard looking for the best way to achieve this,” she said. In what the U.N.’s Division for Sustainable Development says will be the biggest conference ever organized by the U.N., around 50,000 people, including some 135 heads of state and government (or deputies) will take part in the June 20-22 event. During an earlier briefing, Brazilian Rio+20 organizer Luiz Alberto Figueiredo said his government believed that “UNEP should be strengthened as an environmental pillar, because in its present condition it is incapable of adequately carrying out its task.” A pre-Rio+20 report this year by a global sustainability panel set up by U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon included among its 50-plus recommendations one calling for UNEP to be strengthened – “an idea that has gained support in recent years, accompanied by a number of institutional options.” “One option is the possible transformation of UNEP into a specialized agency of the United Nations. A strengthened UNEP could enhance coherence between relevant multilateral environmental agreements, and better integrate its work with the activities of development institutions, especially the United Nations Development Program,” it said. A “program” is a lesser entity than an “agency” in the U.N. hierarchy, with the latter enjoying more power, more autonomy – and more funding. Specialized agencies – such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) – are funded through “assessed contributions” by member states, calculated based on factors such as national income and gross domestic product. The U.S. is assessed at 22 percent, by far the biggest share. (The second and third biggest contributors are Japan and Germany, at 12.5 and 8.02 percent respectively.) In contrast, programs like the Nairobi-based UNEP rely almost entirely on “voluntary” funding. According to the most recent Office of Management and Budget report to Congress on U.S. contributions to the U.N., American taxpayers accounted for $22.9 million directed to UNEP in 2010 – or 9.8 percent of its total funding. That sum included “voluntary” contributions from the Departments of Commerce, Interior and State, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA. UNEO proponents argue that UNEP is weak, underfunded and underperforming. “It was created in 1972,” then French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said in a 2007 speech, “in a very different context from today’s.” Opposing the European-led drive, the U.S. has long argued that the focus should be on improving UNEP rather than upgrading it to specialized agency status. Also, the Bush administration in general opposed U.N.-mandated restrictions on nation states of the type likely to emanate from a more powerful global environmental agency. “We remain firm in our view that the principal responsibility for environmental governance should lay with national governments, not with a supranational authority,” U.S. diplomat Michael Snowden told a U.N. meeting on the subject back in 2006. In a 2007 appeal called the “Paris Call for Action,” Chirac called for “massive international action to face the environmental crisis,” including the creation of a UNEO. “We are coming to realize that the entire planet is at risk, that the well-being, health, safety, and very survival of humankind hangs in the balance,” he said. “We call for the transformation of the UNEP into a genuine international organization to which all countries belong, along the lines of the World Health Organization.” Chirac said the initiative was supported by 46 countries, mostly European but also developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia (The number has more than doubled since.) They excluded the U.S., Russia, and major fast-developing economies China, India – and at that time, Brazil. Chirac was speaking in the context of the release by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of a series of reports declaring that global warming was “very likely” man-made and that its effects would continue for centuries. (The IPCC, which was itself established by UNEP and another U.N. body in 1988, was later forced to retract an assertion in its 2007 reports stating that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.) Last year the Obama administration signed up to another new environmental organization, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Although it is not a U.N. agency – yet – IRENA members’ contributions are based on the same formula used to fund the U.N., so U.S. taxpayers provide 22 percent of the budget.

Groups Concerned Over Arming Of Domestic Drones A quadrocopter drone equipped with a camera stands on display at the Zeiss stand on the first day of the CeBIT 2012 technology trade fair on March 6, 2012 in Hanover, Germany. WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – With the use of domestic drones increasing, concern has not just come up over privacy issues, but also over the potential use of lethal force by the unmanned aircraft. Drones have been used overseas to target and kill high-level terror leaders and are also being used along the U.S.-Mexico border in the battle against illegal immigration. But now, these drones are starting to be used domestically at an increasing rate. The Federal Aviation Administration has allowed several police departments to use drones across the U.S. They are controlled from a remote location and use infrared sensors and high-resolution cameras. Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone. “Those are things that law enforcement utilizes day in and day out and in certain situations it might be advantageous to have this type of system on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle),” McDaniel told The Daily. The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC. Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from. “When the officer is on the scene, they have full access to info about what has transpired there,” Crump explained to CBSDC. “An officer at a remote location far away does not have the same level of access.” The ACLU is also worried about potential drones malfunctioning and falling from the sky, adding that they are keeping a close eye on the use of these unmanned aircraft by police departments. “We don’t need a situation where Americans feel there is in an invisible eye in the sky,” Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst at ACLU, told CBSDC. Joshua Foust, fellow at the American Security Project, feels domestic drones should not be armed. “I think from a legal perspective, there is nothing problematic about floating a drone over a city,” Foust told CBSDC. “In terms of getting armed drones, I would be very nervous about that happening right now.” McDaniel says that his community should not be worried about the department using a drone. “We’ve never gone into surveillance for sake of surveillance unless there is criminal activity afoot,” McDaniel told The Daily. “Just to see what you’re doing in your backyard pool — we don’t care.” But the concern for the ACLU is just too great that an American’s constitutional rights will be trampled with the use of drones. “The prospect of people out in public being Tased or targeted by force by flying drones where no officers is physically present on the scene,” Crump says, “raises the prospect of unconstitutional force being used on individuals.”

NYC propsed ban on sugary drinks evokes mixed reaction NEW YORK – Waistline savior or soda jerk? Reactions to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to ban large-size sugary beverages were mixed Thursday as details poured out. The measure places a 16-ounce cap on bottled drinks and fountain beverages sold at New York City restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It affects drinks that have more than 25 calories per 8 ounces. The proposal is the first time a U.S. city has so directly attempted to limit sugary-drink portions. It would not apply to 100% juice or beverages with more than 50% milk or milk substitute. Soft drink companies and restaurants will "go ballistic," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. "It interferes with their basic business model, which is to sell as much as they can of their highest-profit-margin items." Coca-Cola issued a statement: "New Yorkers expect and deserve better than this. They can make their own choices." A McDonald's statement said "public health issues cannot be effectively addressed through a narrowly focused and misguided ban." And even though Hardee's and Carl's Jr. owner CKE Restaurants doesn't have outlets in New York City, CEO Andrew Puzder weighed in: "New York used to be the Mecca for economic freedom and individual liberty, but every time it passes these Nanny State regulations, it betrays that heritage." "It promises to be the most effective way to reduce consumption of a product that causes obesity," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "I think it's good," said New Yorker Melissa Friedman, 28, who said she appreciates Bloomberg's many health-focused endeavors, which include barring smoking in public parks, forcing chain restaurants to put calorie information on menus and banning trans fats in restaurant foods. Samantha Hershkowitz, 21, saw the good intentions but wondered what such bans might lead to. "What's the next step?" she says. "Are you going to ban candy in movie theaters?"

Action Alert: California legislature passes AB 2109, making it more difficult for parents to opt out of vaccines for their children (NaturalNews) The medical establishment in California is quietly waging war against parental rights with a new legislative bill that will make it more difficult for parents to opt out of vaccines for their children. According to reports, the California State Assembly recently voted 44-19 to pass AB 2109, a bill that, if signed into law, will require that all parents who choose to opt their children out of vaccines for personal reasons obtain a signed waiver from a doctor of "health care practitioner" stating that they participated in an indoctrination session about the supposed health risks of not vaccinating. Existing law in California allows all parents to exempt their children from "mandatory" vaccines for either personal or medical reasons. In the case of personal exemptions, parents simply must obtain a Personal Belief Exemption Form (PBEF) from their local health department's Immunization Program, or from their children's school, and submit it to the appropriate party in lieu of a proof of vaccination form (http://www.naturalnews.com). But the California Medical Association (CMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the California Immunization Coalition (CIC), and many pro-vaccine doctors and assemblymen, including AB 2109 author Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), want to obstruct parental rights. Their goal is to make it as difficult as possible for parents to opt out of vaccines for their children in the hope that they will simply comply. AB 2109 has received little media attention despite massive ramifications One would think that with the drastic changes being proposed in the bill, AB 2109 would be all over the news. But that is hardly the case. With the exception of a billboard campaign arranged by the good people over at Age of Autism, the mainstream media has been largely silent on this important issue. California has been a target of the pro-vaccine brigade for a while now as just last fall, the California legislature passed AB 499, which allows for secret administration of HPV vaccines (Gardasil, Cervarix) and other vaccines for sexually-transmitted diseases, without parental consent (http://www.naturalnews.com/033629_vaccinations_parental_consent.html). Now, authorities are trying to erode parents' ability to freely decline having their children injected with toxic, chemical cocktails in the name of "science-based medicine." AB 2109 a 'first step' towards forced vaccinations During arguments for why AB 2109 should be passed, Assembly Democrats argued that too many parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children, and that deadly diseases are making a comeback as a result. But as we have pointed out numerous times before, this ideology is flawed, as most alleged resurgences are occurring in vaccinated children rather than in unvaccinated children (http://www.naturalnews.com). But the real kicker is how AB 2109 supporters alluded to the bill being a stepping stone towards eventual forced vaccinations. Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Whittier), for instance, is quoted by The Republic as saying that AB 2109 is a "first step" towards eliminating parental freedom to opt out of vaccines for their children. The writing is on the wall, and it is time for health freedom advocates to step up and take action. According to California's legislative information page, AB 2109 is headed next to the California State Senate, and if it passes there, it will proceed to Governor Jerry Brown's desk to be signed. more