Privacy

Metadata – what does it capture:

• IP address endpoints on http traffic, but not https.
• GSM MetaData – who you called/texted and when/where.
• Public wifi hotspots not required to collect metadata.
• https mail is secure from metadata protection except —>
  Five eyes agreement (Share intelligence – US UK NZ CANADA and AUST)
  Not secure if you email a non-https email account.
• Metadata DOES NOT INCLUDE your content on Facebook, however obviously public shared data is available to anyone, and private or friends only data is available through PRISM (see below).

Subpoenas
Information held by Australian service providers, and sometimes international services can be subpoenaed. Example, copyright cases.

https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/digital-freedom-and-privacy/go-dark-against-data-retention/go-dark-against-data-retention

National Security Agency

NSA have several mechanisms for tracking/collecting data.  The main methods are Internet Backbone interception and PRISM

• Internet Backbone:
  AT&T, Verizon, Sprint have all provided NSA access to their networks.  This means NSA can monitor and collect data going across those provider’s networks.   NSA have also been caught out intercepting routers enroute from manufacturer to customer and inserting software backdoors.  This means they can log any traffic that crosses that router once it is in operation.
• PRISM. PRISM is a surveillance system that provides backdoor access to several main service providers.  It allows NSA agents to access data held on users of those services.   Known members of PRISM include:
  Facebook
  Yahoo (who fought it in FISA court but lost)
  Microsoft (and outlook.com)
  Apple
  Google
  AOL
  http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/17/4517480/nsa-spying-prism-surveillance-cheat-sheet
• FISA Court. – sometimes supports NSA, sometimes limits it.  FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  FISA is responsible for authorising or blocking NSA surveillance operations.

Security (Solutions)

Warrant Canary

Like a canary used by miners, if the canary dies, there is a gas leak.  Canaries will die from gas before humans, so a dead canary is advanced notice for humans of a gas leak.  Likewise, a warrant canary is a statement regularly updated by a provider indicating they have not been subject to a government warrant.  If the statement is out of date or missing, it means the company has been subject to warrant, and therefore your data held by the company may no longer be secure.

Warrant canaries are issued because warrant requests usually legally require the company not reveal that they are subject to a warrant.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq

TOR

Web browsing anonymity. IP address obfuscation. Slow, and can’t be used for torenting since torenting breaks the anonymity. Outbound nodes can be compromised.

https anywhere improves security by ensuring all traffic is encrypted.

VPN – Encrypts traffic between the user and the vpn proivder
VPN providers can be subpoenaed – look for vpn that doesn’t keep ip address logs.
Free vpn versus paid – pros and cons – Free VPN providers are less secure, unknown.  Large providers are more secure, but more likely to be subject to warrant.

https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en

Private chat/call/email

Wickr – goes through central provider but end to end encryption – they don’t know what you are sending.
Wick use Warrant Cannaries.

RISEUP – https secure email. Not encrypted at provider, but provider is trustworthy. They can still be subpoenaed. Riseup use a Warrant Canary.
https://help.riseup.net/

TextSecure, now Redphone – recommended by Snowden – encrypted, but some metadata can leak.

Skype – encrypted, but can be captured if Skype has been subject to warrant (whereas wickr data is fully encrypted end point to end point). Also meta data is leaky. No warrant canary – owned by MS so part of PRISM

All above chat/call methods rely on third parties

Mesoporous silica particle

The consumer and environment advocacy group Friends of the Earth has commissioned independent research that confirms nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and Silica in a range of food products.  Foods known to be affected so far include M&Ms, Nestlé Coffee Mate Creamer, Old El Paso Taco Mix and Woolworths Homebrand White Sauce.

In light of statements by Food Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) given to Parliament that food products containing these ingredients will not be sold until they have been subject to safety testing and pre-market approval, there is concern that the problem is unquantified and many more foods may contain nanoparticles.

FOE Press Release available here: Independent testing finds illegal and potentially harmful nanoparticles in common food products.

Further evidence that the government have a head in the sand approach to nanoparticles in food can be found on the Department of Health (via National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, NICNAS) website that claims “Reported uses of TiO2 nanoparticles in Australia are similar to the overseas uses — cosmetic and sunscreen products and surface coatings such as paint”. No mention of food. Without labelling requirements, and with the government denying the presence of nanoparticles, consumers are unable to decide to exercise caution in the consumption of foods containing nanoparticles.

Read the NICNAS Nanoparticle Report.

There are few safety studies available on the use of nanoparticles in food, but studies that have been done on nanoparticles point to potential carcinogenic affects, genotoxicity or immune system compromise. The report “Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: a review of current toxicological data” provides a review of current research.  Part of the finding raises concern about pulmonary inflammation and lung cancers:

“Pulmonary inflammatory responses and lung cancers are the most important adverse effect observed in experimental animals due to TiO2 NP exposures. When only using realistic doses are considered, as in the case of some inhalation studies, inflammatory responses are still a prominent effect seen. ”  http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/10/1/15

More research is needed before deciding on whether nanoparticles are safe for human consumption.

UPDATE: In response to the SMH article Nanotechnology Found in Popular Foods Despite Repeated Denials by Food Regulators, FSANZ has released this statement. The statement essentially amounts to “FSANZ and other international food regulatory agencies have not identified any health effect known to be associated with the use of nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and silica, following oral ingestion in foods”.  They have also announced that a leading toxicologist will be undertaking a review into nanoparticles in food, with the final report expected to be published in late 2015 to early 2016.

Note: This article originally appeared in foodirradiationwatch.org, by the same author.