Slashdot Mirror
Saudis Gained Access to Amazon CEO's Phone, Says Bezos' Security Chief (thedailybeast.com)
"The security chief for Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos said on Saturday that the Saudi government had access to Bezos' phone and gained private information from it," Reuters reports.
But in addition, the National Enquirer's lawyer "tried to get me to say there was no hacking," writes security specialist Gavin de Becker. I've recently seen things that have surprised even me, such as National Enquirer's parent company, AMI, being in league with a foreign nation that's been actively trying to harm American citizens and companies, including the owner of the Washington Post. You know him as Jeff Bezos; I know him as my client of 22 years... Why did AMI's people work so hard to identify a source, and insist to the New York Times and others that he was their sole source for everything? My best answer is contained in what happened next: AMI threatened to publish embarrassing photos of Jeff Bezos unless certain conditions were met. (These were photos that, for some reason, they had held back and not published in their first story on the Bezos affair, or any subsequent story.) While a brief summary of those terms has been made public before, others that I'm sharing are new -- and they reveal a great deal about what was motivating AMI.
An eight-page contract AMI sent for me and Bezos to sign would have required that I make a public statement, composed by them and then widely disseminated, saying that my investigation had concluded they hadn't relied upon "any form of electronic eavesdropping or hacking in their news-gathering process." Note here that I'd never publicly said anything about electronic eavesdropping or hacking -- and they wanted to be sure I couldn't.... An earlier set of their proposed terms included AMI making a statement "affirming that it undertook no electronic eavesdropping in connection with its reporting and has no knowledge of such conduct" -- but now they wanted me to say that for them. The contract further held that if Bezos or I were ever in our lives to "state, suggest or allude to" anything contrary to what AMI wanted said about electronic eavesdropping and hacking, then they could publish the embarrassing photos.
I'm writing this today because it's exactly what the Enquirer scheme was intended to prevent me from doing. Their contract also contained terms that would have inhibited both me and Bezos from initiating a report to law enforcement.
Things didn't work out as they hoped.
De Becker instead turned over his investigation's results to U.S. federal officials, then published today's essay warning the National Enquirer and its chairman have "evolved into trying to strong-arm an American citizen whom that country's leadership wanted harmed, compromised, and silenced." He also suggests it's in response to the "relentless" coverage by the Washington Post (which Bezos owns) of the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist and dissident Jamal Khashoggi.
"Experts with whom we consulted confirmed New York Times reports on the Saudi capability to 'collect vast amounts of previously inaccessible data from smartphones in the air without leaving a trace -- including phone calls, texts, emails.'"
But in addition, the National Enquirer's lawyer "tried to get me to say there was no hacking," writes security specialist Gavin de Becker. I've recently seen things that have surprised even me, such as National Enquirer's parent company, AMI, being in league with a foreign nation that's been actively trying to harm American citizens and companies, including the owner of the Washington Post. You know him as Jeff Bezos; I know him as my client of 22 years... Why did AMI's people work so hard to identify a source, and insist to the New York Times and others that he was their sole source for everything? My best answer is contained in what happened next: AMI threatened to publish embarrassing photos of Jeff Bezos unless certain conditions were met. (These were photos that, for some reason, they had held back and not published in their first story on the Bezos affair, or any subsequent story.) While a brief summary of those terms has been made public before, others that I'm sharing are new -- and they reveal a great deal about what was motivating AMI.
An eight-page contract AMI sent for me and Bezos to sign would have required that I make a public statement, composed by them and then widely disseminated, saying that my investigation had concluded they hadn't relied upon "any form of electronic eavesdropping or hacking in their news-gathering process." Note here that I'd never publicly said anything about electronic eavesdropping or hacking -- and they wanted to be sure I couldn't.... An earlier set of their proposed terms included AMI making a statement "affirming that it undertook no electronic eavesdropping in connection with its reporting and has no knowledge of such conduct" -- but now they wanted me to say that for them. The contract further held that if Bezos or I were ever in our lives to "state, suggest or allude to" anything contrary to what AMI wanted said about electronic eavesdropping and hacking, then they could publish the embarrassing photos.
I'm writing this today because it's exactly what the Enquirer scheme was intended to prevent me from doing. Their contract also contained terms that would have inhibited both me and Bezos from initiating a report to law enforcement.
Things didn't work out as they hoped.
De Becker instead turned over his investigation's results to U.S. federal officials, then published today's essay warning the National Enquirer and its chairman have "evolved into trying to strong-arm an American citizen whom that country's leadership wanted harmed, compromised, and silenced." He also suggests it's in response to the "relentless" coverage by the Washington Post (which Bezos owns) of the murder of Saudi Arabian journalist and dissident Jamal Khashoggi.
"Experts with whom we consulted confirmed New York Times reports on the Saudi capability to 'collect vast amounts of previously inaccessible data from smartphones in the air without leaving a trace -- including phone calls, texts, emails.'"
Like Russians (aka the KGB) don't have control over TRUMP's phone every day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sounds like AMI/National Enquirer broke laws. Lock them up and throw away the keys.
This is your evidence of foreign countries trying to influence votes. Of course, you will hand wave it away since this particular dollar disaster is cheap
The contract further held that if Bezos or I were ever in our lives to "state, suggest or allude to" anything contrary to what AMI wanted said about electronic eavesdropping and hacking, then they could publish the embarrassing photos.
I Can't Believe It's Not Blackmail(TM)!
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Sounds like they were decrypting communications at the base station. So a MITM attack.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And so confident and comfortable in himself that he doesn't need one.
Take notes, Orange.
It doesn't make a difference if the signal came from an Android or an iPhone. Your lack of technical knowledge is showing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The Saudis are pure evil, but Jeff Bezos is not exactly a saint himself who has been actively helping build various modern war and surveillance technologies. I would still take Bezos over the Saudis, though it's quite ironic to witness Bezos getting a taste of his own medicine.
It is not western gov that concern me. It is fascism such as this. When a gov works with businesses to destroying ppl, then you have issues. Look at how Russia and China have destroyed a number of ppl.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Islamophobia!!!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
We love them because they used to be relatively well controlled compared to Iran and because they keep the Death to Israel chanting unofficial.
Stingray?
At certain levels the Saudi's are very close with the Israeli's who in turn are among the best building this type of espionage stuff.
Do't forget they have the same enemies, Iran and the Palestinians.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
To understand the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, one must understand there are two governments in Saudi Arabia. There's the House of Saud, which is the royal family. They are responsible for international relations and members of the family hold many posts in government.
There is also the Ulama, the Islamic religious establishment. The Ulama runs a lot of the internal government, including schools. All royal proclamations (laws) have to be approved by the Ulama to take effect. The royal family nominates a new king, subject to the approval of the Ulama.
So over all the royal family *exercises* power, does things, but always subject to the authority of the Islamic religious authorities. The House of Saud is focused on day-to-day administration, the Ulama on the big picture. The official constitution of the country is the Qur'an.
Throughout the Middle East, including in Saudi Arabia, some of the Islamic leadership does things that the US doesn't like, including how they treat Christians and jews. Within that context of a region unfriendly to US values, the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been relatively friendly to the United States and Western Europe.
So in short, the US tends to be friendly with part of the Saudi government - the royal family, while being very displeased by the actions of a separate part, the Ulama.
Bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia nine years earlier, precisely for anti-US, anti-Western rhetoric. He was forced to leave in 1992 and officially stripped of Saudi citizenship in 1994. So no, he wasn't a Saudi in 2011.
Bin Laden had helped kick the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, ending in 1989. That made him a hero to many Arabs.
A few years later, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia borders Iraq and Kuwait, so with Iraq invading its neighbors, Saudi Arabia was a next logical target for invasion. Bin Laden offered to mass a defensive army on the border to protect Saudi Arabia from invasion by Iraq. The Saudis turned him down, instead requesting help from the United States in this role. Note, this is the Saudis choosing the US over bin Laden a decade before 9-11.
Based on his experience in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, bin Laden very much did not like the idea of non-muslim military forces in Saudi Arabia. He spoke up about the Saudi royal family getting help from the outsiders (the US), saying some rather nasty things about the "infidels" and that got him kicked out of the country.
Had bin Laden been allowed to bring in the calvary to save the day in Saudi Arabia, he would be even more of a hero, he probably thought. He probably saw it as the US stealing his glory. On top of that, the royal family publicly chose the US over him, which would have been insulting. See why he was pretty pissed at the US?
Osama wanted revenge on the US partly because the Saudis rejected him, choosing to partner with the US instead.
Money corrupts absolutely.
This supported by lack of exception
It's super fucking simple. "Smart" phones are not secure, and are designed primarily as listening/data gathering devices. Important and wealthy people should NOT use smart phones. I'm a target (much smaller target than Bezos, obviously), and I use a smart phone as little as possible. As soon as the situation presents itself, I'll be getting rid of all of my smart phones for flip phones.
I don't respond to AC's.
I thought the brother already admitted selling this stuff to the Enquirerer for $200K.
I'll be getting rid of all of my smart phones for flip phones.
As even a small target, I'm amazed that you ever started using a smart phone in the first place. It's one of the things that the security people advised me to avoid. Back in the early days of smart phones.
Have gnu, will travel.
A stingray is a subverted mobile tower that collects information?
Not really subverted equipment. It's a portable cell transceiver that can be located close enough to the target phone to force that phone to force that phone to negotiate with itself as the closest cellular base station.
There are no Saudi Arabia mobile phone spies here.
Lots of private investigators. And some moonlighting cops that can borrow equipment. All for hire. If you think only the Feds and law enforcement have Stingrays, I have a bridge to sell you.
Have gnu, will travel.
Yeah, I spend all day in email. That's all I need my "smart" phone for. I should probably look into flip phones that handle email well.
I don't respond to AC's.
I spend all day in email. That's all I need my "smart" phone for. I should probably look into flip phones that handle email well.
Flip phones may have less attack surface than smarter phones, but they also have less security updates. There's no particular reason to believe that they are more secure. If you want a more secure smartphone, run LineageOS on an Android phone and don't add any accounts to the system, only to the email client. But ultimately, you don't control any cellphone; they all have closed blobs for their radios. There's literally no point to using a flip phone to get more security.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The main thing I don't want is Google or Apple capturing all of my data and tracking everything I do. I need to be able to use email all of the time, and make phone calls, but that's all I need.
I don't respond to AC's.
The main thing I don't want is Google or Apple capturing all of my data and tracking everything I do. I need to be able to use email all of the time, and make phone calls, but that's all I need.
That's why you'd be better off with LineageOS on a smartphone than with whatever ancient bullshit is on a flip phone. It's better for email. Like I said, just don't add any accounts to your phone, or your browser, and you'll get as close as possible to what you're looking for. Frankly, you could get that even with AOSP, but LineageOS is nicer than AOSP. The most important part is to get a popular phone which uses a popular SoC and which is also unlockable (both bootloader and SIM.) If you don't have that, you don't have anything.
I used to use a SEMC Xperia Play. The initial install was full of stock apps, etc. Official updates ended at gingerbread. But the device was fully unlockable, and unofficial upgrades got it up to ICS...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What's a popular "SoC"? I do have a retail store where I can buy unlocked phones for cash (Micro Center!), luckily. The trick is just matching up what they have with the *exact* model that Lineage supports. I've tried that a couple of times, and both times found out after the fact that that particular, specific, sub-model didn't work with Lineage for whatever reason.
I don't respond to AC's.
What's a popular "SoC"?
The more phones use the same System on Chip as your phone, the more support there will be for it, as a rule. I believe that Mali is the only GPU core that's got OSS drivers, so if that's a thing you might care about at some point, look for a SoC that's got a Mali GPU.
The trick is just matching up what they have with the *exact* model that Lineage supports.
Yes. And the supported models are generally based on what SoC they're built on, and the model for a certain frequency range in a specific region will often have a different model number and use a different SoC.
If you can actually lay your hands on unlocked phones, then you are in a position to get their model numbers, and look them up on XDA-Developers. Figure out which of the interesting ones have active development on there. Of those, pick one from a vendor which is historically friendly to unlocking, and if there's a choice, choose one for which the vendor has promised updates into the future.
I went with Moto X4 Android One edition, which Motorola has been clearing out at $150 for 3GB/32GB. It's IP68 and they have bootloader unlocking, and an OTA to Pie. LineageOS for this phone is Pie-based. First one had a bad speaker, but I'm happy with this one so far...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18 U.S.C. Â 873 defines blackmail as the threat to reveal someone's illegal acts (additional state laws may define blackmail in other ways.) So, this would be extortion, not blackmail.
Standard IANAL disclaimer
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I wondered why his hair looked so fake. I just chalked it up to eccentricity.
Cheap storage VM.
but it makes a difference if it was going to an Android. iPhone-to-iPhone is encrypted as an iMessage.