Home Tags Shooting

Tag: shooting

No, Russia isn’t sending a Terminator robot to the space station

Financially, conditions could get worse for the Russian space agency in a few years.

Facebook video of elderly man being murdered gets over 1.6 million...

Suspect shot and killed himself Tuesday after a police chase in Pennsylvania.

“Pizzagate” DC shooter pleads guilty, faces years in prison

At sentencing hearing, judge asks defendant if he was the culprit: "Yes ma'am."

Oklahoma state bill would let property owners shoot down drones

Federal law says it's illegal to shoot at aircraft, including drones.

Decrypted: The Expanse: Planet-busters and Epstein drives

This week, John Timmer and I discuss suspension of disbelief, tropes, and lots more.

Shootings at school follow trends in the unemployment rate

A comprehensive database of events lets researchers explore potential causes.

Cloud Bottlenecks: How Pokémon Go (and other game dev teams) caught...

Lesson: “Something that works with two million users doesn’t always work with 10 million."

Mississippi AG Jim Hood sues Google—again

Enlarge / Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (R) at a news conference in 2015.Alex Wong/Getty Images reader comments 34 Share this story Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is sparring with Google once more. Last year, Hood and Google wound down a court dispute over Hood's investigation into how Google handles certain kinds of online content, from illegal drug ads to pirated movies.

E-mails from the 2014 Sony hack showed that Hood's investigation was spurred on, in part, by lobbyists from the Motion Picture Association of America. Now Hood has a new bone to pick with the search giant. Yesterday, Hood filed a lawsuit (PDF) against Google in Lowndes County Chancery Court, saying that the company is gathering personal data on students who use Google's G Suite for Education, (previously called Google Apps for Education). In a statement, Hood said that "due to the multitude of unclear statements provided by Google," his investigators don't know exactly what information is being collected. "Through this lawsuit, we want to know the extent of Google's data mining and marketing of student information to third parties," Hood said. "I don't think there could be any motivation other than greed for a company to deliberately keep secret how it collects and uses student information." The complaint claims that through a child's educational account, "Google tracks, records, uses and saves the online activity of Mississippi's children, all for the purpose of processing student data to build a profile, which in turn aids its advertising business." That gives Google an unfair edge over its competitors and violates Mississippi consumer protection law, say state lawyers. More than half of Mississippi schools use Google products, according to Hood's office. A Google spokesperson declined to comment on the matter. Google said that it stopped collecting any student data for advertising purposes in 2014. In an interview with the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Hood explained one investigative technique his office used.

The investigators logged on to a laptop with a student's educational e-mail address and password and made some queries on YouTube.

Then they logged out, went to a different browser, and logged in again. "It started shooting ads at us dealing with the same query that that child had put in.
So we knew that they were tracking that child," Hood told the Clarion-Ledger. Hood's concerns mirror those from an Electronic Frontier Foundation complaint over Google Apps for Education, filed with the Federal Trade Commission in late 2015.

That complaint pointed out that Google Chrome's "Sync" feature was enabled by default on educational laptops, meaning that Google could track, store, and data-mine student Internet use, although not for advertising purposes. As of last month, the FTC had yet to take action on the EFF complaint.

“We aren’t born woke, something wakes us up“—maybe it’s Twitter, says...

reader comments 18 Share this story
The Texas Tribune kicked off its weekend symposium by interviewing activist DeRay Mckesson. Texas Tribune AUSTIN, Texas—“We aren't born woke, something wakes us up." By now, everyone's experienced a newsfeed full of #NoDAPL or long Twitter threads explaining some proposed legislation that threatens a certain cause. With years of social media experience behind us, it's easy for this stuff to feel like white noise.

But the next time someone shrugs off any of these posts in the name of social justice as useless, tell them DeRay Mckesson begs to differ.

All of it has the ability to help others get "woke," to newly realize there's a problem and a need to combat it.
So during his keynote Q&A at the Texas Tribune's weekend symposium on race and policy, the Black Lives Matter activist encouraged everyone to fight toward “equity, justice, and fairness” in the way that works best for them... even if starts as small as a tweet. For Mckesson, in fact, social media initially proved to be the way of getting involved.

Back in August 2014 after the tragic police shooting of unarmed, black teenager Michael Brown, he wanted to go to Ferguson, Missouri, and merely participate in the peaceful response for a weekend. He had no grand plans of country-wide organizing at the time; then the protests spanned 300 days: “I drove nine hours for a weekend, but I guess it's been a long weekend,” Mckesson said of his work since. Mckesson loved (and continues to love) Twitter, and he recalled having only 800 or so followers at the time.

But he thought of the platform as the friend who's always awake, someone you could reach out to no matter what was on your mind or when you thought it. "I didn't know anyone in St. Louis, but I tweeted all the time because I was experiencing the wildest stuff I've ever seen in my life," he said. "I didn't have anyone to tell, but Twitter was always awake." As Mckesson and others shared what was happening on the ground with the world, more and more people started paying attention.

The idea of Black Lives Matter may have existed beforehand, but the response to the deaths of Brown and Eric Garner that summer sparked a larger movement. "I never participate in the slander of slacktivisim, or social media activism.
I know some people got woke because of a tweet, a Facebook post, a one-on-one conversation at dinner, or something they heard in passing.

All of that stuff contributes to how people understand what the world can be and what the world is," Mckesson says. "We didn't invent resistance; we didn't discover injustice. We exist in a legacy of people who've done this work, but what's new is we have a different set of tools.

Today, I can talk to 600,000 people at the drop of the tweet in a way that King, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Coretta couldn't." A need for more than Ustream For Mckesson, one of the strongest tools for spreading awareness today is live video streaming, and he said this evolved rapidly in part because of those Ferguson Black Lives Matter social media efforts. Mckesson said that during the fall of 2014, Twitter creator Jack Dorsey had approached him and other activists about trialling the services’s potential live video options.

At the time, Vine was the most widespread option, but its time limits weren’t ideal for extended protest broadcasts. "We tested Periscope before Twitter bought Periscope, and one of the reasons they bought it was the protests," he said. "They acknowledged they needed to be in this space and allow the platform to grow in the way the world is growing. We tested Periscope when like 30 people in the world had it, then Twitter bought Periscope and integrated it." (Before Periscope? Mckesson said Black Lives Matter relied on Ustream, which is coincidentally what the Texas Tribune also relied on for things like the 2013 Wendy Davis Texas legislature filibuster.) Twitter acquired Periscope the following spring in February 2015, and the rest remains history-in-progress.

The service has since captured everything from a House Democrats' sit-in over gun violence to evidence in possible criminal cases. Mckesson is quick to acknowledge this democratization of information—social media changing who gets to decide what news is and who is a content creator—is a big part of why Black Lives Matter has found success so far. "Two years ago people thought only St. Louis was screwed up,” he said.

Today, the call for body cameras and police accountability has spread nationwide.

Both the public and federal government have taken notice, as evidenced by the recent, massive DOJ report on major metropolitan police departments. But Mckesson is just as quick to recognize social media's current pitfalls. With Twitter in particular, some activists like journalist Lindy West have left the platform all together due to the service's lack of tools to effectively combat harassment.
Such abuse has even come over the mundane (see a Mortal Kombat producer leaving the service after threats against his family), and the sheer volume of it has inspired activists like Zoe Quinn to start their own support networks against online harassment. Mckesson and Black Lives Matter are no stranger to this type of online harassment (whether it's language or advanced DDoS campaigns). Additionally, insularism and waves of misinformation plague many platforms today, meaning the next social activism breakthrough will likely not come from another influx of citizen reporters. "We're going to hit a critical mass, if we haven't already hit it, of too much content," he said. "People literally don't know what to take in anymore.
So the next power houses will be the Digital Oprahs, people who can tell us what to be looking at and how to start thinking about it." Mckesson then teased this is as an issue Black Lives Matter has been actively thinking about. As we move forward in America with new leadership, Mckesson seems like an optimist but acknowledges lots of energy may get wrapped up in withstanding actions of the Donald Trump administration.

But whether future activism stems from resistance or progress, he believes social media will continue to be a tool possessing the potential to make change. Mckesson himself stands as living proof.

As he put it, President Obama’s mantra for the power of citizens—“get a clipboard and make it happen”—should have a digital component, too. Listing image by Nathan Mattise

Lawyer sues Chicago police, claims they used stingray on him

Enlarge / A Chicago Police car, as seen in 2003.Tim Boyle / Getty Images reader comments 18 Share this story A local attorney has sued the City of Chicago and numerous police officials in a proposed federal class-action lawsuit, claiming that he and countless others were unconstitutionally searched when the police used a cell-site simulator without a warrant. In the suit, Jerry Boyle, who describes himself as an “attorney and longtime volunteer legal observer with the National Lawyers’ Guild,” alleged that while attending the “Reclaim MLK Day” event in Chicago nearly two years ago, his phone was targeted by the Chicago Police Department’s device, better known as a stingray.

Boyle argued that his Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights were violated as a result. Stingrays are used by law enforcement to determine a mobile phone's location by spoofing a cell tower.
In some cases, stingrays can intercept calls and text messages. Once deployed, the devices intercept data from a target phone along with information from other phones within the vicinity.

At times, police have falsely claimed the use of a confidential informant when they have actually deployed these particularly sweeping and intrusive surveillance tools. Often, they are used to locate criminal suspects. The 32-page lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Chicago on Thursday, specifically notes where and when the stingray was used, on January 15, 2015, “at approximately 8:00pm at the protest, near the 2200 block of West Ogden Avenue.” However, the civil complaint does not explain exactly how the plaintiff knows this information. “The evidence regarding CPD's use at that event is something that will be disclosed during the litigation,” Matt Topic, one of Boyle’s lawyers, e-mailed Ars. The Chicago Police Department did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment. A new hope While there have been other legal challenges regarding stingrays, they often fall into two types of cases: one where a criminal defendant alleges a stingray was unlawfully used and civil cases where a plaintiff seeks stingray-related public records. This case, however, marks a rare—perhaps the only—civil case where a person has alleged an unconstitutional search via the use of a stingray. “I’m not aware of any stingray case in a civil context,” Brian Owsley, a former federal magistrate judge who is now a law professor at the University of North Texas, told Ars. When Owsley was on the federal bench, he famously pushed back against government requests to authorize the use of such devices. “Typically the posture is that some criminal defendant learns about the use of a stingray related to their criminal proceedings and there’s a challenge based on that,” he continued. “Boyle hasn’t been charged with anything and doesn’t appear likely that he’s going to be charged and still is coming in and asserting that his constitutional rights were violated.

That’s really the unique part.

That’s the atypical thing at a minimum.” When is a “search” not a search? The CPD is likely to eventually counter with the legal argument that using a stingray, at least in a public place, is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Police lawyers also could argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public, under the landmark 1967 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Katz. Still, Matt Topic has had some previous success in lawsuits against the CPD.

Topic successfully represented a local journalist who filed a public records request to get the dashcam video depicting the fatal shooting of teenager Laquan McDonald. He has also represented a privacy activist, Freddy Martinez, in his quest to get more public records released on the CPD’s stingray capabilities. “We contend that it is a search,” Topic told Ars. “The stingray physically trespasses upon the phone to obtain information from it. Whether the phone is in public at the time does not change that, just as it would be an improper search to open up a briefcase being carried around in public.

That said, though, stingrays do not distinguish between public spaces and private ones.
In many instances, a stingray deployed on a public street will necessarily take information from phones within the private spaces (like homes) in range of the device.” Just two months ago, the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals—the controlling appellate court that covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin—ruled in favor of the government in a related case (United States v. Patrick) that a wanted man who was located via stingray in public indeed had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his location. In that case, federal prosecutors conceded that use of a stingray was, in fact, a search.

But the Chicago Police Department has made no such concession for now. But in that same case, Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood lambasted secrecy surrounding the device in a lengthy dissent. “We know very little about the device, thanks mostly to the government’s refusal to divulge any information about it,” she wrote. “Until recently, the government has gone so far as to dismiss cases and withdraw evidence rather than reveal that the technology was used.” Brett Max Kaufman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told Ars that Boyle’s case could be viewed, in some ways, as a continuation of Patrick. “This new suit tees up the clear Fourth Amendment question about stingrays that Patrick didn’t end up addressing,” he e-mailed.

Families of ISIS victims sue Twitter for being 'weapon for terrorism'

The families of three Americans killed in ISIS terror attacks are suing Twitter for allegedly knowingly providing support for the terrorist group and acting as a “powerful weapon for terrorism.” The suit was filed over the weekend in a federal court in New York City on behalf of the relatives of three U.S. nationals who were killed by ISIS in the March 22, 2016, terrorist attacks in Brussels and the Nov. 13, 2015, terrorist attacks in Paris.

At least 32 people died in the Brussels attack and about 130 in the attack in Paris. The suit alleges that Twitter has violated, and continues to violate, the U.S.

Anti-Terrorism Act.

The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and monetary damages to be determined at trial. Twitter did not reply to a request for comment. “Twitter’s social media platform and services provide tremendous utility and value to ISIS as a tool to connect its members and to facilitate the terrorist group’s ability to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies,” the suit alleges. “ISIS has used Twitter to cultivate and maintain an image of brutality, to instill greater fear and intimidation, and to appear unstoppable ...” The lawsuit also contends that specifically for the Brussels and Paris attacks, ISIS used Twitter to issue threats, as well as to announce and celebrate the attacks. The lawsuit was filed by the family of siblings Alexander Pinczowski and Sascha Pinczowski, who were killed in Brussels, and the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in Paris. Last year, another lawsuit was filed by Gonzalez’s father against Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for allegedly knowingly allowing ISIS to “use their social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.” In December, the families of three victims of the June shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, sued Facebook, Twitter and Google, the owner of YouTube, for allegedly ”providing support to the Islamic State.” Forty-nine people were killed in the attack. The question, if either case goes to trial, is whether a social network can be held responsible for the actions of any of its users. “While I certainly can sympathize with the families, it’s hard for me to see how Twitter can be held responsible for the rise of ISIS and their terror activities,” said Dan Olds, an analyst with OrionX. “Let’s imagine the world a few decades ago, before the internet. Would someone try to hold AT&T responsible for criminal activities that were planned over the telephone? Or is the printing press manufacturer responsible for magazines that encourage terrorism that were printed using presses they built and sold? “ In response to the attacks, Twitter took steps to prevent terrorists from using its network. In August, the company reported that in the previous six months, it had suspended 235,000 accounts for violating its policies related to the promotion of terrorism. That was in addition to 125,000 accounts that been suspended since mid-2015, bringing the total number of terrorist-related suspended accounts to 360,000. “We strongly condemn these acts and remain committed to eliminating the promotion of violence or terrorism on our platform,” the company said in a blog post at the time. Judith Hurwitz, an analyst with Hurwitz & Associates, said it would be a significant challenge for Twitter to keep terrorists completely off its site. “Perhaps Twitter could do a better job identifying users who are terrorists,” she said, saying the company would likely need advanced machine learning tools to weed out the bad players. “Of course, it would have to be advanced… Remember that terrorists are very good at adapting.
If they are thrown off of the system, they can come back with a different persona and try to game the system.” Brad Shimmin, an analyst with Current Analysis, said social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Google can’t be held responsible for their users’ actions. “There is no way of effectively policing those sites based upon affiliation or behavior,” Shimmin said. “Twitter itself has gone to some extreme measures to single out and remove accounts engaged in this sort of thing.

That will help, and I think such efforts are a moral responsibility for Twitter and other social networking vendors, but those actions can’t rule out future misuse.” Olds said it would be impossible for Twitter to keep terrorists from using its site 100% of the time, but the company could do a better job of curtailing it. “Terrorist messages should be able to be rooted out with some solid language processing software,” Olds said. “I’d like to see them do more along these lines.

The technology is there, they just need to adapt it to anti-terrorist tasks.” If Twitter loses the lawsuit and is ordered to pay significant damages, the impact on other social networks would be chilling, he said. “Social networks would be forced to keep a much closer eye on user activities and crack down on anything that could be interpreted as ‘bad,’ “ Olds said. “The end result would be self-imposed censorship on the part of the nets, which would greatly upset many users.

But I just don’t see this happening—at least not with this case.” This story, "Families of ISIS victims sue Twitter for being 'weapon for terrorism' " was originally published by Computerworld.

White House Announces Retaliatory Measures For Russian Election-Related Hacking

35 Russian intelligence operatives ejected from the US, and two of the "Cyber Most Wanted" are frozen out by Treasury Department. UPDATED 4:00 PM E.T.

THURSDAY -- The US, today, formally ejected 35 Russian intelligence operatives from the United States and imposed sanctions on nine entities and individuals: Russia's two leading intelligence services (the G.R.U. and the F.S.B.), four individual GRU officers, and three other organizations.

The actions are the Obama administration's response to a Russian hacking and disinformation campaign used to interfere in the American election process. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security also released new declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, in an effort to help network defenders protect against these threats. Further, the State Department is shutting down two Russian compounds, in Maryland and New York, used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes. Plus, the US Department of Treasury sanctioned two members of the FBI's Cyber Most Wanted List, Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev and Aleksey Alekseyevich Belan.
Infosec pros will recognize Bogachev especially as the alleged head of the GameOver Zeus botnet.

A $3 million reward for info leading to his arrest has been available for some time. Treasury sanctioned Bogachev and Belan "for their activities related to the significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for private financial gain.

As a result of today’s action, any property or interests in property of [Bogachev and Belan] within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them." This is the first time sanctions are being issued under an Executive Order first signed by President Obama in April 2015, and expanded today.

The original executive Order, gives the president authorization to impose some sort of retribution or response to cyberattacks and also allows the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to institute sanctions against entities behind cybercrime, cyber espionage, and other damaging cyberattacks.

That includes freezing the assets of attackers. The sanctions announced today are not expected to be the Obama administration's complete response to the Russian operations.
In a statement, the president said "These actions are not the sum total of our response to Russia’s aggressive activities. We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized." The moves will put pressure on president-elect Donald Trump to either support or attempt to lift the sanctions on Russian officials and entities.

Trump has expressed skepticism at the validity of American intelligence agencies' assertions that such a campaign occurred at all. When asked by reporters Wednesday night about the fact that these sanctions were set to be announced, Trump said, “I think we ought to get on with our lives.
I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly.

The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on.  The NY Times reported today that immediate sanctions are being imposed on four Russian intelligence officials: Igor Valentinovich Korobov, the current chief of the G.R.U., as well as three deputies: Sergey Aleksandrovich Gizunov, the deputy chief of the G.R.U.; Igor Olegovich Kostyukov, a first deputy chief, and Vladimir Stepanovich Alekseyev, also a first deputy chief of the G.R.U. From the Times: The administration also put sanctions on three companies and organizations that it said supported the hacking operations: the Special Technologies Center, a signals intelligence operation in St. Petersburg; a firm called Zor Security that is also known as Esage Lab; and the Autonomous Non-commercial Organization Professional Association of Designers of Data Processing Systems, whose lengthy name, American officials said, was cover for a group that provided special training for the hacking. Wednesday, The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' official representative, Maria Zakharova, said in a statement on the ministry's website: "If Washington really does take new hostile steps, they will be answered ... any action against Russian diplomatic missions in the US will immediately bounce back on US diplomats in Russia." 'Proportional' response The news comes after President Obama stated in October that the US would issue a "proportional" response to Russian cyber attacks on the Democratic National Committee.  The administration has used the word "proportional" when discussing cyber attacks before.
In December 2014, while officially naming North Korea as the culprit behind the attacks at Sony Pictures Entertainment, President Obama said the US would "respond proportionately." That attack was against one entertainment company, however, and not a nation's election system, so the proportions are surely different. "We have never been here before," said security expert Cris Thomas, aka Space Rogue, in a Dark Reading interview in October. "No one really knows what is socially acceptable and what is not when it comes to cyber. We have no 'Geneva Convention' for cyber."  According to Reuters reports, "One decision that has been made, [officials] said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict." As Christopher Porter, manager of the Horizons team at FireEye explained in a Dark Reading interview in October, Russian doctrine supports escalation as a way to de-escalate tensions or conflict. "If the US administration puts in place a proportional response, Moscow could do something even worse to stop a future response … I think that is very dangerous." "The administration, fellow lawmakers and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting-war," said Intel Security CTO Steve Grobman, in a statement. "While offensive cyber operations can be highly precise munitions, in that they can be directed to only impact specific targets, the global and interconnected nature of computing systems can lead to unintended consequences.
Impacting digital infrastructure beyond the intended target opens the door to draw additional nation states into a conflict.

This increases risk to civilian populations as countries see the need to retaliate or escalate." ORIGINAL STORY: Officials stated Wednesday that the White House will announce, as early as today, a series of measures the US will use to respond to Russian interference in the American election process.

The news comes after President Obama stated in October that the US would issue a "proportional" response to Russian cyber attacks on the Democratic National Committee.  Not all the measures will be announced publicly.

According to CNN, "The federal government plans some unannounced actions taken through covert means at a time of its choosing." Wednesday, CNN reported that as part of the public response, the administration is expected to name names -- specifically, individuals associated with a Russian disinformation operation against the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The actions announced are expected to include expanded sanctions and diplomatic actions. Reuters reported Wednesday that "targeted economic sanctions, indictments, leaking information to embarrass Russian officials or oligarchs, and restrictions on Russian diplomats in the United States are among steps that have been discussed." In April 2015, President Obama signed an Executive Order, which gives the president authorization to impose some sort of retribution or response to cyberattacks.

The EO has not yet been used.
It allows the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to institute sanctions against entities behind cybercrime, cyber espionage, and other damaging cyberattacks.

That includes freezing the assets of attackers. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' official representative, Maria Zakharova, said in a statement on the ministry's website: "If Washington really does take new hostile steps, they will be answered ... any action against Russian diplomatic missions in the US will immediately bounce back on US diplomats in Russia." 'Proportional' response The administration has used the word "proportional" when discussing cyber attacks before.
In December 2014, while officially naming North Korea as the culprit behind the attacks at Sony Pictures Entertainment, President Obama said the US would "respond proportionately." That attack was against one entertainment company, however, and not a nation's election system, so the proportions are surely different. "We have never been here before," said security expert Cris Thomas, aka Space Rogue, in a Dark Reading interview in October. "No one really knows what is socially acceptable and what is not when it comes to cyber. We have no 'Geneva Convention' for cyber."  According to Reuters reports, "One decision that has been made, [officials] said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is to avoid any moves that exceed the Russian election hacking and risk an escalating cyber conflict." As Christopher Porter, manager of the Horizons team at FireEye explained in a Dark Reading interview in October, Russian doctrine supports escalation as a way to de-escalate tensions or conflict. "If the US administration puts in place a proportional response, Moscow could do something even worse to stop a future response … I think that is very dangerous." "The administration, fellow lawmakers and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting-war," said Intel Security CTO Steve Grobman, in a statement. "While offensive cyber operations can be highly precise munitions, in that they can be directed to only impact specific targets, the global and interconnected nature of computing systems can lead to unintended consequences.
Impacting digital infrastructure beyond the intended target opens the door to draw additional nation states into a conflict.

This increases risk to civilian populations as countries see the need to retaliate or escalate." Related Content:   Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ...
View Full Bio More Insights