On Friday, a massive cyber attack hit several nations in Europe and Asia, and disrupted the computer systems at multiple British hospitals. Patients were turned away as hospital staff couldn’t access the computers, and appointments had to be cancelled. The BBC reports that as many as 74 countries were affected, and security researchers believe all of the incidents are related.

The British public health system, National Health Service, advised people to only seek medical help at hospitals if it was an emergency. Ambulances were redirected to other hospitals. The screens on the hacked hospitals’ computers showed a message from the hackers each demanding $300 in Bitcoins within three days to unlock the information.

BREAKING: Multiple NHS trusts across UK under malware attack. Actual screenshot of the threat ppl are seeing: https://t.co/ZBm6a7ImwQ pic.twitter.com/7NVy8xvfyD

— Shaun Lintern (@ShaunLintern) May 12, 2017

The technique behind the attack is so-called “ransomware,” which basically is a type of software that infects a digital machine and locks its functions until a ransom has been paid. The name of this particular malware is “Wanna Cry,” also known as “Wanna Decryptor.”

36,000 detections of #WannaCry (aka #WanaCypt0r aka #WCry) #ransomware so far. Russia, Ukraine, and Taiwan leading. This is huge. pic.twitter.com/EaZcaxPta4

— Jakub Kroustek (@JakubKroustek) May 12, 2017

Several experts believe the cyber attack is linked to a hacker group called The Shadow Brokers–the same group that claimed in April that it had stolen and released malware created by the National Security Agency, NSA. It was not exactly clear what the groups’ motive was–it said it wanted to protest President Donald Trump, but also that it opposed the removal of Steve Bannon from the National Security Council.

The hackers also claimed they are “not fans of Russia or Putin,” but security experts said they could possibly be associated with the Russian government. One chief executive of a cyber-security firm, Jake Williams, said, “Russia is quickly responding to the missile attacks on Syria with the release of the dump file password that was previously withheld.”

Could we be seeing the largest cyber attack in history? Organisations in 74 countries now hit including FedEx and NHS #ransomware #WannaCry

— Lisa Forte (@lisaoncyber) May 12, 2017

Other companies that were affected include Spanish electric company Iberdrola, utility provider Gas Natural, University of Milano-Bicocca in Italy, Portuguese telecommunications provider Portugal Telecom, and FedEx. The largest telecommunications company, Telefonica, was also hit, but the attack reportedly didn’t affect any customers. It seemed to be a new kind of ransomware, and it spread fast. Some said it seemed to be a worm–a malware program that spreads by between computers, like a virus.

In Britain, the NHS is facing criticism for not doing enough to protect its computer systems against attacks like these. The hacker group became known two months ago, and Microsoft released a program that could protect against its malware. But not all NHS computers installed it. Ross Anderson from Cambridge University is one of the critics. “If large numbers of NHS organizations failed to act on a critical notice from Microsoft two months ago, then whose fault is that?” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Cyber Attack Put British Hospitals Out of Commission appeared first on Law Street.

A new detail has been drudged up regarding the January prisoner swap between the United States and Iran: as the U.S. hostages boarded their planes, $400 million dollars–divvied into euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currencies–was passed to the Iranians. The cash drop, reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, drew ire from Republicans opposed to the Iran deal–in which the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for reduced nuclear capacity and increased tolerance for outside inspectors–and used it as evidence of why President Obama’s diplomatic handshake with Iran is ill-advised.

“This report makes plain what the administration can no longer deny: this was a ransom payment to Iran for U.S. hostages,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cautioned those who were gnashing their teeth at the report–which he said was still unconfirmed–but said if true, amounted to “another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal.”

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

The $400 million cash delivery also reportedly included $1.3 billion in accrued interest. The money dates back to the 1970s, according to U.S. officials involved in the transfer. They said it was a belated return of funds Iran paid for U.S. weapons before the 1979 revolution. At some point during the seventies, Iran paid $400 million for a cache of weapons, but the Iranian government was overthrown by revolutionaries in 1979, and American hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The weapons deal never went through. But the U.S.–until January 2016–had yet to return the $400 million to Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday defended the cash drop, saying it “saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.” He added: “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.”

January’s exchange was primarily a prisoner swap. Iran held five hostages–including a Washington Post journalist, a marine veteran and a Christian pastor–and the U.S. held seven Iranians, six of whom have dual U.S. citizenship. All of those men were held, some already convicted, others awaiting trial, on charges of exporting activities that violated sanctions in place on Iran. All were released in exchange for the U.S. prisoners.

But the timing of the cash drop, which happened at the same time as the prisoner exchange, and as the Iran nuclear deal was being finalized, was enough to prompt outrage from congressional Republicans and a fresh round of tweets from Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, who implicated Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

The White House refuted the ransom claims, and portrayed the Republican backlash as no more than an attempt to justify their position against the Iran nuclear deal. John Earnest, White House press secretary, said the Republican response was “an indication of just how badly opponents of the Iran deal are struggling to justify their opposition to a successful deal.” He also reiterated the U.S. policy to not engage in ransom exchanges, adding: “Let me be clear, the United States does not pay ransom for hostages.”

But, what is the official policy regarding securing U.S. hostages?

In June 2015, President Obama announced an executive order that clarified the language on assisting families in negotiating with terrorists who might harbor their loved one. Obama’s order created a new team based at FBI headquarters called the Hostage Response Team, but said the U.S. “will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.” Instead, the new team would be “responsible for ensuring that our hostage policies are consistent and coordinated and implemented rapidly and effectively.”

The executive order was designed to shape the rules regarding negotiating with terrorist groups. And while Iran is known to fund terrorist groups, it is a functioning government state. It’s unclear whether the Obama administration’s stance extends to governments, but on Thursday Kerry seemed to insinuate the policy applies to every hostage-taking body: “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Pays Iran $400 Million: Ransom or Routine? appeared first on Law Street.

Watching Rosamund Pike deliver a creepy performance of a psychotic, scorned wife who concocted her own kidnapping in Gillian Flynn’s movie adaptation of bestseller “Gone Girl” was thrilling. Her performance may have been so good, in fact, that it acted as inspiration for a California woman who was located after being reported kidnapped, in what police are now calling a hoax.

Denise Huskins, 29, was reported as having been kidnapped from her boyfriend’s home early Monday for an $8,500 ransom demand, and then inexplicably surfaced Wednesday, 420 miles south in Huntington Beach. The attorneys of Huskins’ boyfriend, Aaron Quinn, said the ransom demands were made only to him. They also stated that the abduction occurred between 3 and 5 a.m., but Quinn did not report it until noon because he had concerns for his girlfriend’s safety.

After interviewing both Quinn and Huskins, police issued a statement Wednesday stating that they have found “no evidence to support the claims” that the physical therapist was abducted. According to ABC News Vallejo Police Lt. Kenny Park said during a news conference Wednesday night:

All indications initially were that she would be cooperative with the investigation,but as of right now, we have not heard from Ms. Huskins.

“This is no hoax,” insists lawyer for Denise Huskins, but police suggest abduction was staged http://t.co/wi17vvxRbn pic.twitter.com/kJWMur5qoq

— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) March 27, 2015

Huskins’ lawyer Douglas L. Rappaport is adamant that his client really was kidnapped, telling the LA Times:

She is a victim, and she is a woman who has been the victim of a violent crime and to a certain degree is being re-victimized.

Attorneys for Huskins’ boyfriend, Quinn, have also denied that the kidnapping was a hoax. Quinn told investigators that there were two kidnappers, and that they forcibly drugged and bound him. According to the LA Times, Quinn provided blood samples to the police to prove that he was truly drugged. He also provided his email account passwords and ended up being interrogated for 17 hours by FBI and police.

Police have referred to the incident as a “wild goose chase,” saying it was a complete waste of resources. Investigators are unsure of the couples motives for perpetuating the hoax, but the FBI is reportedly searching financial records for clues.

If this was, in fact, a kidnapping hoax, what kind of legal ramifications could Huskins and possibly Quinn face?

In other cases where individuals have faked their own kidnappings for various reasons, police have been known to charge them with making false alarms or making false claims, which can result in either a large fine and/or some jail time. Huskins’ case, however, is still developing and potential charges, if any, cannot yet be determined. One thing’s for sure, if Huskins did in fact fake her kidnapping, she could have learned a thing or two from Flynn’s “Gone Girl” character about meticulous planning.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gone Girl: Police Say California Woman’s Kidnapping Wasn’t Real appeared first on Law Street.

The 72-hour deadline for Japan to pay Islamic terror organization ISIS $200 million in exchange for two Japanese hostages has come and passed. The impending fate of the two men is unknown.

The video below was posted Tuesday on militant websites showing a masked man with a knife threatening to execute kneeling freelance journalist Kenji Goto and security contractor Haruna Yukawa, if Japan refused to pay their hefty ransom in time. This hostage situation comes in response to ISIS allegations that the Japanese government is financially supporting U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS installations in Syria and Iraq, even though they have vehemently denied these claims.

While the world waits to see what will happen to the two captives, some experts are questioning the validity of the video itself. Evidence suggests that the ISIS video may have been filmed indoors using a green screen. The video is said to have been filmed in the same location as videos showing American hostages James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig, and British captives David Haines and Alan Henning.

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told the Associated Press that the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions as opposed to one bright sun. If the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge. Khan goes on to say that “the hostages are visibly bothered by the bright light.”

So how do we explain the noticeable breeze in the video blowing around both hostages’ orange jumpsuits? According to Khan it’s the result of a fan:

Wind in the desert would be noisy and affect the sound quality of the statements being made by the knife-wielding man. It would also kick up dust, and none seems apparent.

Many are wondering why the captors chose to use the green screen in the video. Some believe it is indicative of ISIS captors being less able to move around the Islamic State than initially believed, the green screen tactic being more for intimidation and concealment purposes than production value.

While the condemnation of two captors is almost certain, Japanese citizens are responding to the video with their own visual manipulation. A mocking hashtag translating loosely to “ISIS Crappy Photoshop Grand Prix” has been mentioned more than 75,000 times on Twitter. It features extravagant yet insensitive memes of the hostages and their masked captor. The memes may come in poor taste due to the likely fate of the hostages, but for some humor is their weapon against terror.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes appeared first on Law Street.

The world is reeling after the very public slaughter of an American journalist named James Foley.

Although details are still unclear, here’s what we know right now: Foley was taken hostage by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group. According to ISIS, it also has some other American and British hostages — the exact number is unknown, but American officials believe there are at least three other American hostages. Some demands were made, but the United States obviously does not negotiate with terrorists. An unsuccessful rescue attempt was made earlier this summer. Now the news has surfaced that Foley was guarded by a specific group of ISIS militants, British-born, who call themselves “the Beatles.” According to reports, the British jihadists were especially brutal and worthless. A New Hampshire native, Foley was in Syria reporting for the Agence France-Presse and the GlobalPost. He’s been held since November 2012. Earlier this week, he tragically lost his life.

I want to start by saying how tragic and horrible this was — Foley, an innocent bystander, lost his life because he was used as a powerful political pawn. ISIS is expanding its influence and becoming an incredibly powerful and terrifying group in Iraq and Syria — the Foley execution is just another example of that power it now wields.

But it’s important to remember that the move by ISIS was relatively unsurprising. Hostages have been powerful bargaining tools since the beginning of time. As tragic and horrific as Foley’s death was, and I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt in any way to diminish that, it was unremarkable in a historical sense.

The way it’s been handled, however, has been remarkable in every sense of the word. The video of Foley’s execution was uploaded to YouTube. Since then, it has made the rounds of pretty much every corner of the internet. It’s gory, it’s horrifying, and the fact that anyone with an internet connection can now access it pretty easily is a public travesty. Social networks have started banning users who share the video, and various media publications are under fire for their choices to provide either the video or still shots from it.

The New York Post especially received a lot of ire for its decision to show a still from the video on its front page, in print. Where anyone could see it, even if they didn’t want to. I’m no stranger to blood and gore — I have distinct memories of watching that video of Saddam Hussein being executed when I was a freshman in high school. But that doesn’t mean it’s right to force that kind of stuff on people. I follow the news every day, but that’s my choice. I have friends and family who avoid the news — and until this week I have to be honest that I didn’t fully understand why. But when it’s that easy to accidentally see something that disturbing, I get it. Anyone who published this video or pictures is very close to being over the line.

Then there’s the fact that by sharing this video, the power that groups like ISIS can have has been magnified. ISIS claims that it killed James Foley because its demands were not met, and while that may be true, there’s another motive here. ISIS is an organization that relies heavily on terroristic tactics. The thing about terrorism though is it works really, really well if people know about it. Every time that video is shared or a screengrab is published, ISIS gains more power in the form of fear to wield.

I know I’m in the qualification for a hypocritical lifetime achievement award now that I’ve just spent the last 600-odd words writing about the very people I’m encouraging you not to give attention to, but I’ll leave you with this: my condolences go out to Foley’s loved ones. That’s where our minds should be, not watching the perverse and horrifying circumstances of his death, for so many different reasons.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Watch the Foley Video appeared first on Law Street.