Black Chambers


Quoted in an article by SC Magazine concerning the State Department’s silence on matters of global privacy and cybersecurity practices, Black Chambers CEO Alexander Urbelis opined that his silence is “hardly surprising” given the inconsistent messaging from the administration, executive, and legislative components of federal and state government.

Going further, Urbelis stated that “If State takes a laudatory position on the UN resolution that offline human rights should be similarly protected online, then State is implicitly endorsing the work of digital rights activists, which could be seen to be at loggerheads with the administration's position on whistleblowers.”

The article, published by SC Magazine, is entitled ‘State Dep’t Crippled by Cyber Practices, Inconsistent Messaging from US Agencies,’ and was inspired, in part, by comments about cybersecurity made by President Obama made this past weekend at two separate event.

The DHS Intelligence Unit was scalded by an Inspector General report for lack business continuity and disaster recovery planning. Black Chambers CEO Alexander Urbelis was quoted by SC Magazine in an article addressing these failures, plans for improving business continuity preparedness, and the reasons for the major backlog of DHS Freedom of Information Act requests.

The SC Magazine article is entitled, 'Report: DHS Intelligence Unit Lacks ‘Adequate Oversight for Continuity Capabilities’ and was based on DHS Office of the Inspector General report of 16 May 2016, entitled 'Office of Intelligence and Analysis Can Improve Transparency and Privacy.'

In a SC Magazine article, discussing the information security practices of Secretary of State Clinton, Black Chambers CEO Alexander Urbelis was quoted discussing proper methods of handling classified and sensitive information, and problems arising from too-quick reversions to insecure methods of communication.

The article entitled “E-mails Raise More Questions About Clinton InfoSec Practices,” was based on recently released documents from Judicial Watch.

As a correspondent for the Oxford Martin Cybersecurity Capacity Portal, a project of Oxford University, Black Chambers CEO Alexander Urbelis published an article on impact on corporate defenses that the debate over encryption regulation and legislation is likely to have.

Black Chambers will also be speaking about this topic later this week at the Inside the Dark Web conference.

Please contact us if you would like to attend the conference as our guest.

On 12 May 2016, at the ‘Inside the Dark Web’ conference held in New York, Black Chambers will weigh in on the long-lasting and largely undiscussed implications of the ongoing legal battles over encryption.

Taking center stage at the debate over whether encryption should be regulated on the device level, was the federal court repartee between the FBI and Apple. Much has been said about the merits of the arguments on both sides, but little has been discussed about the long-term unintentional consequence of weakening corporate defenses to malicious activity ongoing on the dark web. Our panel will address three components of this direct collision of law and information security.

First, we will first address the disposition of the FBI v. Apple legal battle. Two of our panel participants were intimately involved in the legal battle between 2600 Magazine and the MPAA (Universal Studios v. Reimerdes), being cited for the somewhat shaky proposition that source code should be protected by the First Amendment.

Second, our talk will delve into the often-overlooked State legislation that proposes to regulate encryption on mobile devices and elsewhere and the status of the UK's Investigatory Powers Bill. The focus on this portion will be on the breadth of the legislation, and possible negative effects on corporate security.

Finally, options for securing and protecting data using existing encryption products and services will be explored. Whether the FBI v. Apple legal battle and whether State or international legislation will impact such services will be assessed. Critically, however, this portion will focus on the policies and practices of cloud service providers, and the best options for a company to legally secure its own data, both from the prying eyes of malicious actors and from governmental or regulatory overreach.


Page 1 of 3