Saudis Gained Access to Amazon CEO's Phone, Says Bezos' Security Chief (thedailybeast.com) 118
"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.'"
Le Sigh... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Le Sigh... you fucking idiot (Score:1)
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
Criminals (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like AMI/National Enquirer broke laws. Lock them up and throw away the keys.
Re: Criminals (Score:1)
"What AMI wanted". Anybody check with AMI or do we just believe people without verification when they say someone else wants something? Or did the contract say "AMI wants ... And you are prohibited from verifying this fact". Sure sounds like a typical Saudi trick.
Re: Criminals (Score:5, Informative)
"What AMI wanted". Anybody check with AMI or do we just believe people without verification when they say someone else wants something? Or did the contract say "AMI wants ... And you are prohibited from verifying this fact". Sure sounds like a typical Saudi trick.
Well, they put out a press release essentially stating that they considered those threats not blackmail but good-faith negotiation which they are disappointed Bezos saw fit to publish but if people think there is anything wrong with it, they will make an effort to verify that it very much complies with what they consider their ethics.
So yes: people checked with AMI and AMI basically acknowledged that this is what they did and this is how they think business should be done.
Re: (Score:3)
Burn down their building and sow the ground to salt.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Sounds like Bezos is on a media blitz to impugn the National Enquirer.
Re: Criminals (Score:1)
Donâ(TM)t forget all the âpositiveâ(TM) press surrounding the lack of security on an android phone.
That seems to be going under the radar.
Re: (Score:2)
That thinking kind of stops when you specifically hand over the information to the FBI. The Saudi's attempting to extort the US fiscal elite, in conjunction with denying the handover of bits of Syria to Israel (Syria was meant to be the enemy and Israel the friend of Saudi Arabia). It feels like all the fractures and faults in the deep state and shadow government are starting to bring down those houses of cards. They are turning on each other now.
ICBINB (Score:5, Funny)
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)!
Re: (Score:1)
Because there was no demand of money. Bezos and company were trying to say negative things and the contract was more of a truce. https://definitions.uslegal.co... [uslegal.com]
Re:ICBINB (Score:5, Informative)
"21-3428. Blackmail.
Blackmail is gaining or attempting to gain anything of value or compelling another to act against such person's will, by threatening to communicate accusations or statements about any person that would subject such person or any other person to public ridicule, contempt or degradation.
Blackmail is a severity level 7, nonperson felony" literally from your link ......
Re: (Score:2)
And the Pentagon is still going ahead with their JEDI cloud services contract with Amazon? Black mail is THE primary issue that the DoD has with contractors and candidates for clearances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ICBINB (Score:1)
Shut your mouth or I will kill you.
That would be blackmail, if it was a credible threat.
Re:ICBINB (Score:4, Informative)
Neither extortion nor blackmail requires a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And probably Trump is involved in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Each one of those pardons will be a criminal act.
Extortion, not Blackmail (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
We love them because they used to be relatively well controlled compared to Iran and because they keep the Death to Israel chanting unofficial.
Kicked out of Saudi Arabia in 1992 for anti-US (Score:3)
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
Two governments in Saudi Arabia, House of Saud and (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How it must feel to taste your own medicine. (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Amazing how many worry about US gov (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be ideal but it's much better than being a conspiracy theorist nut with an opinion based on fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is fascism such as this. When a gov works with businesses
Where was big business in the "McCarthy" era?
Where was big business in the run-up to the Iraq War? Oh, yeah, NYT carrying water for war propaganda.
Where was big business in the "Trump is a Russian Agent" era? Oh, right, Deep State and big-media partnership.
Truth be told, it was Hearst who sponsored Reefer Madness and turned Anslinger from some kook into the Godfather of the Drug War.
When people say, "you can't trust the media anymore," remember
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, oil had nothing at all to do with Iraq.
I note that Mueller report has not been released. If innocent, then why not release the report? Why did so many ppl lie? The report did NOT clear him.
the intelligence world continues to not trust our president/VP/admin,
As to not trusting the media, that was Hitler and his 25 points that pushed that.
Sounds like a clear case of (Score:2, Funny)
Islamophobia!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Stingray?
Re:I don't believe it for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
A stingray is a subverted mobile tower that collects information?
Not really subverted equipment. It's a portable cell transceiver [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Do't forget they have the same enemies, Iran and the Palestinians.
Power corrupts and (Score:2)
Money corrupts absolutely.
This supported by lack of exception
Rich/important people should not use smart phones (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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, y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Didn't Bezos' girlfriend's brother admit it (Score:3)
I thought the brother already admitted selling this stuff to the Enquirerer for $200K.
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be an implication that it was just a cover story to cover the illegal source of the information. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I think de Becker is suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be an implication that it was just a cover story to cover the illegal source of the information. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I think de Becker is suggesting.
Why would her brother lie to protect the Enquirer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thatâ(TM)s what you get for using android (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bezos is so rich (Score:1)
And so confident and comfortable in himself that he doesn't need one.
Take notes, Orange.
Re: (Score:1)
Elon Musk somehow grew more hair over a 20 year span https://nyppagesix.files.wordp... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)