U.S. and Monsanto Dominate Global Market for GM Seeds
- By Organic Consumers Association
August 7, 2013
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Genetic Engineering page.
One glance at the statistics and it’s clear: The U.S. and Monsanto dominate the global market for genetically engineered crops. Forty percent of the world’s genetically modified (GM) crops are grown in the U.S., where Monsanto controls 80 percent of the GM corn market, and 93 percent of the GM soy market.
Worldwide, 282 million acres are planted in Monsanto’s GM crops, up from only 3 million in 1996, according to Food and Water Watch.
Forty percent of U.S. cropland, or 151.4 million acres, are planted in Monsanto’s crops. Monsanto owns 1,676 seed, plant and other applicable patents.
Maybe it’s time we ask ourselves: How long will we tolerate the growing monopolization and genetic engineering of seeds by a monopolistic pesticide company that poses a deadly threat to our health, our environment and the future of our food?
Global GM Seed Market
40.8: Percent of world’s GM crops grown in the U.S.
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech... (ISAAA), 2012
76.3: Percent of world’s GM crops grown by the U.S., Brazil, and Argentina.
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech... (ISAAA), 2012
9: Number of countries responsible for 97% of the world’s GMO crops.
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
8: Number of GMO crops that have been approved for commercial production worldwide (soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugarbeet, papaya, squash/yellow zucchini, and alfalfa).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
11: Number of countries that grow GM soybean (81% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
15. Number of countries that grow GM cotton (81% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
17: Number of countries that grow GM maize (35% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
4: Number of countries that grow GM canola (30% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
Monsanto Monopoly
80: Percent of U.S. corn grown from Monsanto patented GMO seeds.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
93: Percent of U.S. soy grown from Monsanto patented GMO seeds.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
27: Percent of Monsanto profits that came from the sale of Roundup herbicide.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
1,676: Number of seed, plant, and other applicable patents owned by Monsanto.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
282 million: Number of acres Monsanto products are grown worldwide (up from 3 million in 1996).
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
151.4 million: Number of acres Monsanto’s GE crop traits are grown in the U.S. (40% of total cropland).
Source: Food and Water Watch, 2013
95: Percent of the U.S. GE corn seed market containing Monsanto’s traits.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
89: Percent of the U.S. GE cotton seed market containing Monsanto’s traits.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association
One glance at the statistics and it’s clear: The U.S. and Monsanto dominate the global market for genetically engineered crops. Forty percent of the world’s genetically modified (GM) crops are grown in the U.S., where Monsanto controls 80 percent of the GM corn market, and 93 percent of the GM soy market.
Worldwide, 282 million acres are planted in Monsanto’s GM crops, up from only 3 million in 1996, according to Food and Water Watch.
Forty percent of U.S. cropland, or 151.4 million acres, are planted in Monsanto’s crops. Monsanto owns 1,676 seed, plant and other applicable patents.
Maybe it’s time we ask ourselves: How long will we tolerate the growing monopolization and genetic engineering of seeds by a monopolistic pesticide company that poses a deadly threat to our health, our environment and the future of our food?
Global GM Seed Market
40.8: Percent of world’s GM crops grown in the U.S.
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech... (ISAAA), 2012
76.3: Percent of world’s GM crops grown by the U.S., Brazil, and Argentina.
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech... (ISAAA), 2012
9: Number of countries responsible for 97% of the world’s GMO crops.
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
8: Number of GMO crops that have been approved for commercial production worldwide (soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugarbeet, papaya, squash/yellow zucchini, and alfalfa).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
11: Number of countries that grow GM soybean (81% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
15. Number of countries that grow GM cotton (81% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
17: Number of countries that grow GM maize (35% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
4: Number of countries that grow GM canola (30% of global planting).
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech...(ISAAA), 2012
Monsanto Monopoly
80: Percent of U.S. corn grown from Monsanto patented GMO seeds.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
93: Percent of U.S. soy grown from Monsanto patented GMO seeds.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
27: Percent of Monsanto profits that came from the sale of Roundup herbicide.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
1,676: Number of seed, plant, and other applicable patents owned by Monsanto.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
282 million: Number of acres Monsanto products are grown worldwide (up from 3 million in 1996).
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
151.4 million: Number of acres Monsanto’s GE crop traits are grown in the U.S. (40% of total cropland).
Source: Food and Water Watch, 2013
95: Percent of the U.S. GE corn seed market containing Monsanto’s traits.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
89: Percent of the U.S. GE cotton seed market containing Monsanto’s traits.
Source: Food And Water Watch, 2013
Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association
Search OCA:Consumer Alert: Secret Trade Agreements Threaten Food Safety, Subvert Democracy
- By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, June 13, 2013
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety page and Politics and Democracy page.
If you think the U.S. government is doing a sub-par job of keeping your food safe, brace yourself. You could soon be eating imported seafood, beef or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food safety standards. Under two new trade agreements, currently in negotiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be powerless to shut down imports of unsafe food or food ingredients. And if it tries, multinational corporations will be able to sue the U.S. government for the loss of anticipated future profits.
More frightening? Negotiations for both agreements are taking place behind closed doors, with input allowed almost exclusively from the corporations and industry trade groups that stand to benefit the most. And the Obama Administration intends to push the agreements through Congress without so much as giving lawmakers access to draft texts, much less the opportunity for debate.
Designed to grease the wheels of world commerce, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would force the U.S. and other participating countries to “harmonize” food safety standards. That means all countries that sign on to the agreement would be required to abide by the lowest common denominator standards of all participating governments. So for instance, say Vietnam allows higher residues of veterinary antibiotics in seafood than the U.S. allows, and Vietnam and the U.S. both sign on to the TPP. As a trade partner, the U.S. could be forced to lower its standards to allow for imports of seafood from Vietnam – or face a lawsuit by the seafood exporter for depriving the company of future sales of its products in the U.S.
The U.S. has already had a taste of this type of policy under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). In 2005, the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade sued the U.S. the U.S. government for banning imports of beef and live Canadian cattle after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Canada. In the end, the U.S. prevailed, but not until it had spent millions to defend itself in court. Mexico wasn’t so fortunate when three companies (Corn Products International, ADM/Tate & Lyle and Cargill) sued the Mexican government for preventing imports of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico lost all three cases, and was forced to pay out a total of $169.18 million to the three firms.
Among the many gifts to Big Ag contained in the TTIP and TPP? Back-door entry for their genetically modified seeds and crops. Countries, including those in the European Union, could find it increasingly difficult to ban, or even require the labeling of, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), if biotech companies determine that those countries’ strict policies restrict fair trade and infringe on the companies’ “rights” to profit.
The TTIP and the TPP are, individually and combined, two of the largest free trade agreements in world history. According to the Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) the TPP alone covers 40 percent of the global economy. That percentage will likely grow, because the agreement allows for other countries, besides the 12 currently involved, to “dock on” after the agreement is in place.
Both the TTIP and TPP could have dangerous consequences for food safety in the U.S., and around the world. But they’re not limited to food or agriculture policy. Both also contain sweeping policies that could affect everything from the environment and sustainability, to healthcare, Internet freedom and the financial markets. Given the potential of these agreements to shape global policy on so many fronts, it’s reasonable to assume that negotiators would actively solicit, and take into careful consideration, input from the affected parties, including consumers, farmers and governments. Instead they’ve taken the opposite approach. From day one, negotiations for the TTIP and TPP have been shrouded in secrecy. The public and participating governments, including the U.S. Congress, have been shut out of the negotiating process, denied access to everything from early proposals to final draft texts.
Why the secrecy? The Obama Administration wants as little public debate as possible, so it can ram the agreements through Congress using something called “Fast Track.” Fast Track, a product of the Nixon presidency, strips Congress of its authority to control the content of a trade deal and hands that authority over to the executive branch. Congress gets a vote, but only after the negotiations have been completed, and the agreements have been signed. No debate. No amendments. Just a fast, forced vote, too late for Congress to have any influence. According to the CTC, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious reservations about the TPP negotiations and the prospect of giving Fast Track authority to the President. And more than 400 organizations representing 15 million Americans have already petitioned Congress to do away with Fast Track in favor of a more democratic approach to trade agreement negotiations. So far those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
If the public is shut out, and Congress gets no say, who gets a seat at the table? Corporations. That’s right. The Obama Administration is trusting corporations like Dow AgroSciences, Cargill and DuPont, and trade groups like the Pork Producers Council and Tobacco Associates, Inc., to write food safety policies. In all, more than 600 corporations have been given access to drafts of various chapters of the TPP. Requests for the same level of access, from members of Congress and from the public, have been denied.
No wonder then that, according to leaked drafts obtained by groups like the CTC, Public Citizen and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), the TPP contains proposals designed to give transnational corporations “special rights” that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens, says Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the CTC. Experts who have reviewed the leaked texts say that TPP negotiators propose allowing transnational corporations to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions, including environmental and food safety laws. Corporations will be allowed to resolve trade disputes in special international tribunals. In other words, they get to do an end run around the countries’ domestic judicial systems, effectively wiping out hundreds, if not more, domestic and international food sovereignty laws.
U.S. consumers aren’t the only ones who should be up in arms about these trade agreements, the secrecy around their negotiations, and the Obama Administration’s intent to fast-track them. Under the TTIP and TPP, consumers in countries that have stricter food safety regulations than those in the U.S. will see their standards lowered, too. For instance, Japan prohibits the use of peracetic acid to sterilize vegetables, fruits and meat, while the U.S., Canada and Australia allow it. Japan’s health ministry, in anticipation of the TPP, has said the country will add the acid to its approved list. In all, Japan has approved only about 800 food additives, to the more than 3,000 approved in the U.S. Japan’s consumers could soon see a sudden reversal of laws enacted to protect their health.
European consumers will also suffer. Europe has long used the precautionary principle to ban ractopamine in meat, chlorine rinses of poultry and the use of rBGH growth hormone in milk production. Under the TTIP, Europe could be forced to allow all three in order to meet the lowest common denominator rule. The precautionary principle removes the burden of proof from policymakers, allowing them to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm, given the lack of scientific proof to the contrary. But that principle flies out the window under TTIP rules.
The Organic Consumers Association is urging consumers to petition President Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to release the draft texts of the TTIP and TPP, and encourage full and open debate on the policies contained in both agreements. The petition also asks President Obama to end the Fast Track option, and grant Congress the ability to debate and amend the agreements, before voting on them.
With the world’s food supply, and consumers’ health, already endangered by chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and climate change, the U.S. and other governments should be looking for ways to promote sustainable food and agriculture policies, not restrict governments’ abilities to do so. Instead, the Obama Administration is subverting the principles of democracy in favor of handing a few transnational corporations unprecedented power to put profits above the health and well being of consumers.
Katherine Paul is Director of Communications and Development for the Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.
If you think the U.S. government is doing a sub-par job of keeping your food safe, brace yourself. You could soon be eating imported seafood, beef or chicken products that don’t meet even basic U.S. food safety standards. Under two new trade agreements, currently in negotiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could be powerless to shut down imports of unsafe food or food ingredients. And if it tries, multinational corporations will be able to sue the U.S. government for the loss of anticipated future profits.
More frightening? Negotiations for both agreements are taking place behind closed doors, with input allowed almost exclusively from the corporations and industry trade groups that stand to benefit the most. And the Obama Administration intends to push the agreements through Congress without so much as giving lawmakers access to draft texts, much less the opportunity for debate.
Designed to grease the wheels of world commerce, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would force the U.S. and other participating countries to “harmonize” food safety standards. That means all countries that sign on to the agreement would be required to abide by the lowest common denominator standards of all participating governments. So for instance, say Vietnam allows higher residues of veterinary antibiotics in seafood than the U.S. allows, and Vietnam and the U.S. both sign on to the TPP. As a trade partner, the U.S. could be forced to lower its standards to allow for imports of seafood from Vietnam – or face a lawsuit by the seafood exporter for depriving the company of future sales of its products in the U.S.
The U.S. has already had a taste of this type of policy under the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). In 2005, the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade sued the U.S. the U.S. government for banning imports of beef and live Canadian cattle after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Canada. In the end, the U.S. prevailed, but not until it had spent millions to defend itself in court. Mexico wasn’t so fortunate when three companies (Corn Products International, ADM/Tate & Lyle and Cargill) sued the Mexican government for preventing imports of high fructose corn syrup. Mexico lost all three cases, and was forced to pay out a total of $169.18 million to the three firms.
Among the many gifts to Big Ag contained in the TTIP and TPP? Back-door entry for their genetically modified seeds and crops. Countries, including those in the European Union, could find it increasingly difficult to ban, or even require the labeling of, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), if biotech companies determine that those countries’ strict policies restrict fair trade and infringe on the companies’ “rights” to profit.
The TTIP and the TPP are, individually and combined, two of the largest free trade agreements in world history. According to the Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) the TPP alone covers 40 percent of the global economy. That percentage will likely grow, because the agreement allows for other countries, besides the 12 currently involved, to “dock on” after the agreement is in place.
Both the TTIP and TPP could have dangerous consequences for food safety in the U.S., and around the world. But they’re not limited to food or agriculture policy. Both also contain sweeping policies that could affect everything from the environment and sustainability, to healthcare, Internet freedom and the financial markets. Given the potential of these agreements to shape global policy on so many fronts, it’s reasonable to assume that negotiators would actively solicit, and take into careful consideration, input from the affected parties, including consumers, farmers and governments. Instead they’ve taken the opposite approach. From day one, negotiations for the TTIP and TPP have been shrouded in secrecy. The public and participating governments, including the U.S. Congress, have been shut out of the negotiating process, denied access to everything from early proposals to final draft texts.
Why the secrecy? The Obama Administration wants as little public debate as possible, so it can ram the agreements through Congress using something called “Fast Track.” Fast Track, a product of the Nixon presidency, strips Congress of its authority to control the content of a trade deal and hands that authority over to the executive branch. Congress gets a vote, but only after the negotiations have been completed, and the agreements have been signed. No debate. No amendments. Just a fast, forced vote, too late for Congress to have any influence. According to the CTC, two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious reservations about the TPP negotiations and the prospect of giving Fast Track authority to the President. And more than 400 organizations representing 15 million Americans have already petitioned Congress to do away with Fast Track in favor of a more democratic approach to trade agreement negotiations. So far those pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
If the public is shut out, and Congress gets no say, who gets a seat at the table? Corporations. That’s right. The Obama Administration is trusting corporations like Dow AgroSciences, Cargill and DuPont, and trade groups like the Pork Producers Council and Tobacco Associates, Inc., to write food safety policies. In all, more than 600 corporations have been given access to drafts of various chapters of the TPP. Requests for the same level of access, from members of Congress and from the public, have been denied.
No wonder then that, according to leaked drafts obtained by groups like the CTC, Public Citizen and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), the TPP contains proposals designed to give transnational corporations “special rights” that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens, says Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the CTC. Experts who have reviewed the leaked texts say that TPP negotiators propose allowing transnational corporations to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions, including environmental and food safety laws. Corporations will be allowed to resolve trade disputes in special international tribunals. In other words, they get to do an end run around the countries’ domestic judicial systems, effectively wiping out hundreds, if not more, domestic and international food sovereignty laws.
U.S. consumers aren’t the only ones who should be up in arms about these trade agreements, the secrecy around their negotiations, and the Obama Administration’s intent to fast-track them. Under the TTIP and TPP, consumers in countries that have stricter food safety regulations than those in the U.S. will see their standards lowered, too. For instance, Japan prohibits the use of peracetic acid to sterilize vegetables, fruits and meat, while the U.S., Canada and Australia allow it. Japan’s health ministry, in anticipation of the TPP, has said the country will add the acid to its approved list. In all, Japan has approved only about 800 food additives, to the more than 3,000 approved in the U.S. Japan’s consumers could soon see a sudden reversal of laws enacted to protect their health.
European consumers will also suffer. Europe has long used the precautionary principle to ban ractopamine in meat, chlorine rinses of poultry and the use of rBGH growth hormone in milk production. Under the TTIP, Europe could be forced to allow all three in order to meet the lowest common denominator rule. The precautionary principle removes the burden of proof from policymakers, allowing them to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm, given the lack of scientific proof to the contrary. But that principle flies out the window under TTIP rules.
The Organic Consumers Association is urging consumers to petition President Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to release the draft texts of the TTIP and TPP, and encourage full and open debate on the policies contained in both agreements. The petition also asks President Obama to end the Fast Track option, and grant Congress the ability to debate and amend the agreements, before voting on them.
With the world’s food supply, and consumers’ health, already endangered by chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and climate change, the U.S. and other governments should be looking for ways to promote sustainable food and agriculture policies, not restrict governments’ abilities to do so. Instead, the Obama Administration is subverting the principles of democracy in favor of handing a few transnational corporations unprecedented power to put profits above the health and well being of consumers.
Katherine Paul is Director of Communications and Development for the Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association.
ORIGINALLY POSTED TO AKADJIAN ON WED AUG 07, 2013 AT 05:02 AM PDT.
ALSO REPUBLISHED BY IN SUPPORT OF LABOR AND UNIONS AND DAILY KOS.
Trust the math. Encryption is your friend. That's how you can remain secure even in the face of the NSA.' Photograph: Beck Diefenbach/Reuters
Now that we have enough details about how the NSA eavesdrops on theinternet, including today's disclosures of the NSA's deliberate weakening of cryptographic systems, we can finally start to figure out how to protect ourselves.
For the past two weeks, I have been working with the Guardian on NSAstories, and have read hundreds of top-secret NSA documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. I wasn't part of today's story – it was in process well before I showed up – but everything I read confirms what the Guardian is reporting.
At this point, I feel I can provide some advice for keeping secure against such an adversary.
The primary way the NSA eavesdrops on internet communications is in the network. That's where their capabilities best scale. They have invested in enormous programs to automatically collect and analyze network traffic. Anything that requires them to attack individual endpoint computers is significantly more costly and risky for them, and they will do those things carefully and sparingly.
Leveraging its secret agreements with telecommunications companies – all the US and UK ones, and many other "partners" around the world – the NSA gets access to the communications trunks that move internet traffic. In cases where it doesn't have that sort of friendly access, it does its best to surreptitiously monitor communications channels: tapping undersea cables, intercepting satellite communications, and so on.
That's an enormous amount of data, and the NSA has equivalentlyenormous capabilities to quickly sift through it all, looking for interesting traffic. "Interesting" can be defined in many ways: by the source, the destination, the content, the individuals involved, and so on. This data is funneled into the vast NSA system for future analysis.
The NSA collects much more metadata about internet traffic: who is talking to whom, when, how much, and by what mode of communication.Metadata is a lot easier to store and analyze than content. It can be extremely personal to the individual, and is enormously valuable intelligence.
The Systems Intelligence Directorate is in charge of data collection, and the resources it devotes to this is staggering. I read status report after status report about these programs, discussing capabilities, operational details, planned upgrades, and so on. Each individual problem – recovering electronic signals from fiber, keeping up with the terabyte streams as they go by, filtering out the interesting stuff – has its own group dedicated to solving it. Its reach is global.
The NSA also attacks network devices directly: routers, switches, firewalls, etc. Most of these devices have surveillance capabilitiesalready built in; the trick is to surreptitiously turn them on. This is an especially fruitful avenue of attack; routers are updated less frequently, tend not to have security software installed on them, and are generally ignored as a vulnerability.
The NSA also devotes considerable resources to attacking endpoint computers. This kind of thing is done by its TAO – Tailored Access Operations – group. TAO has a menu of exploits it can serve up against your computer – whether you're running Windows, Mac OS, Linux, iOS, or something else – and a variety of tricks to get them on to your computer. Your anti-virus software won't detect them, and you'd have trouble finding them even if you knew where to look. These are hacker tools designed by hackers with an essentially unlimited budget. What I took away from reading the Snowden documents was that if the NSA wants in to your computer, it's in. Period.
The NSA deals with any encrypted data it encounters more by subverting the underlying cryptography than by leveraging any secret mathematical breakthroughs. First, there's a lot of bad cryptography out there. If it finds an internet connection protected by MS-CHAP, for example, that's easy to break and recover the key. It exploits poorly chosen user passwords, using the same dictionary attacks hackers use in the unclassified world.
As was revealed today, the NSA also works with security product vendors to ensure that commercial encryption products are broken in secret ways that only it knows about. We know this has happened historically:CryptoAG and Lotus Notes are the most public examples, and there is evidence of a back door in Windows. A few people have told me some recent stories about their experiences, and I plan to write about them soon. Basically, the NSA asks companies to subtly change their products in undetectable ways: making the random number generator less random, leaking the key somehow, adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol, and so on. If the back door is discovered, it's explained away as a mistake. And as we now know, the NSA has enjoyed enormous success from this program.
TAO also hacks into computers to recover long-term keys. So if you're running a VPN that uses a complex shared secret to protect your data and the NSA decides it cares, it might try to steal that secret. This kind of thing is only done against high-value targets.
How do you communicate securely against such an adversary? Snowdensaid it in an online Q&A soon after he made his first document public: "Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on."
I believe this is true, despite today's revelations and tantalizing hints of "groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities" made by James Clapper, the director of national intelligence in another top-secret document. Those capabilities involve deliberately weakening the cryptography.
Snowden's follow-on sentence is equally important: "Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it."
Endpoint means the software you're using, the computer you're using it on, and the local network you're using it in. If the NSA can modify the encryption algorithm or drop a Trojan on your computer, all the cryptography in the world doesn't matter at all. If you want to remain secure against the NSA, you need to do your best to ensure that the encryption can operate unimpeded.
With all this in mind, I have five pieces of advice:
1) Hide in the network. Implement hidden services. Use Tor to anonymize yourself. Yes, the NSA targets Tor users, but it's work for them. The less obvious you are, the safer you are.
2) Encrypt your communications. Use TLS. Use IPsec. Again, while it's true that the NSA targets encrypted connections – and it may have explicit exploits against these protocols – you're much better protected than if you communicate in the clear.
3) Assume that while your computer can be compromised, it would take work and risk on the part of the NSA – so it probably isn't. If you have something really important, use an air gap. Since I started working with the Snowden documents, I bought a new computer that has never been connected to the internet. If I want to transfer a file, I encrypt the file on the secure computer and walk it over to my internet computer, using a USB stick. To decrypt something, I reverse the process. This might not be bulletproof, but it's pretty good.
4) Be suspicious of commercial encryption software, especially from large vendors. My guess is that most encryption products from large US companies have NSA-friendly back doors, and many foreign ones probably do as well. It's prudent to assume that foreign products also have foreign-installed backdoors. Closed-source software is easier for the NSA to backdoor than open-source software. Systems relying on master secrets are vulnerable to the NSA, through either legal or more clandestine means.
5) Try to use public-domain encryption that has to be compatible with other implementations. For example, it's harder for the NSA to backdoor TLS than BitLocker, because any vendor's TLS has to be compatible with every other vendor's TLS, while BitLocker only has to be compatible with itself, giving the NSA a lot more freedom to make changes. And because BitLocker is proprietary, it's far less likely those changes will be discovered. Prefer symmetric cryptography over public-key cryptography. Prefer conventional discrete-log-based systems over elliptic-curve systems; the latter have constants that the NSA influences when they can.
Since I started working with Snowden's documents, I have been usingGPG, Silent Circle, Tails, OTR, TrueCrypt, BleachBit, and a few other things I'm not going to write about. There's an undocumented encryption feature in my Password Safe program from the command line); I've been using that as well.
I understand that most of this is impossible for the typical internet user. Even I don't use all these tools for most everything I am working on. And I'm still primarily on Windows, unfortunately. Linux would be safer.
The NSA has turned the fabric of the internet into a vast surveillance platform, but they are not magical. They're limited by the same economic realities as the rest of us, and our best defense is to make surveillance of us as expensive as possible.
Trust the math. Encryption is your friend. Use it well, and do your best to ensure that nothing can compromise it. That's how you can remain secure even in the face of the NSA.
gleick author bottled and sold: the story behind our obsession w/bottled water: about 55% of bottled waters are spring water. the other 45 is mostly treated tap water, including aquafina (pepsi) and dasani (coke)
from natural awakenings
stevia has no calories or blood sugar swings, 200-300 times sweeter than sugar.
sucanat-reasonably healthy, metabolizes like sugar will cause blood sugar swings as do agave and 'raw' sugar
aspartame and saccharin have been associated w/weight gain and suppressed satiety
sucralose (splenda) can trigger release of insulin as though sugar has been consumed
high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may appear on labels as inulin, glucose-fructose syrup, isoglucose, fruit fructose
HFCS found in many processed foods
reassuring article in the aug 30 michigan farm news p 18 titled 'farmers defend GMO's safety' --- .....there's a lot of money to be made in scaring people away from this...and for whatever reason, people don't want to believe the good. it's a lot easier to believe that something is bad, even though there is no evidence that monsanto is putting out a life-destroying product.....this (gmo food) is the most well-tested product ever. it's tested by usda, fda and the epa
for biotech safety and environmental safety,. it's tested for allergens or bood-borne illnesses from gmo crops. not one reported case. safety is the first thing we look at. . . .a large majority of consumers don't even understand roundup. they think he herbicide is in the corn. so they need education...
http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/soils/health soil amendments
gleick author bottled and sold: the story behind our obsession w/bottled water: about 55% of bottled waters are spring water. the other 45 is mostly treated tap water, including aquafina (pepsi) and dasani (coke)
from natural awakenings
stevia has no calories or blood sugar swings, 200-300 times sweeter than sugar.
sucanat-reasonably healthy, metabolizes like sugar will cause blood sugar swings as do agave and 'raw' sugar
aspartame and saccharin have been associated w/weight gain and suppressed satiety
sucralose (splenda) can trigger release of insulin as though sugar has been consumed
high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may appear on labels as inulin, glucose-fructose syrup, isoglucose, fruit fructose
HFCS found in many processed foods
reassuring article in the aug 30 michigan farm news p 18 titled 'farmers defend GMO's safety' --- .....there's a lot of money to be made in scaring people away from this...and for whatever reason, people don't want to believe the good. it's a lot easier to believe that something is bad, even though there is no evidence that monsanto is putting out a life-destroying product.....this (gmo food) is the most well-tested product ever. it's tested by usda, fda and the epa
for biotech safety and environmental safety,. it's tested for allergens or bood-borne illnesses from gmo crops. not one reported case. safety is the first thing we look at. . . .a large majority of consumers don't even understand roundup. they think he herbicide is in the corn. so they need education...
http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/soils/health soil amendments
No comments:
Post a Comment