There once was this thing called "moral high ground". If it ever existed I think in times of the patriot act, gitmo and a gone wild NSA, you can say they lost it. Dont forget, we once used to be a powerhouse of espionage. And I think we can be no.1 again. Cant be that hard to spot them Amis out having problems with the "ch".
... and just to show we're not to be left out in the cold... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo Optic Nerve: millions of Yahoo webcam images intercepted by GCHQ • 1.8m users targeted by UK agency in six-month period alone • Optic Nerve program collected Yahoo webcam images in bulk • Yahoo: 'A whole new level of violation of our users' privacy' • Material included large quantity of sexually explicit images One could observe, (as Yahoo does it seems), that this is a 'whole new level of violation' of privacy but, IMO, that's a ship that's already sailed
I would just like to say this: ******** you, Dianne Feinstein. ******** you hard with a ********ing unlubricated ********ing pneumatic drill, you goddamn ********ing hypocrite.
I'll tell you something that annoys me about all this... well, ANOTHER thing I should say, obviously. Whilst they're busy sifting through TLW downloading pictures of cats in funny hats and similar shit, could they not take at look at THIS kind of thing??? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...police-corruption-probe-revealed-9217620.html The Metropolitan Police corruption scandal has deepened after The Independent uncovered the existence of a previously secret investigation into criminal officers that went much further than the files destroyed by Scotland Yard. Operation Zloty, a wide-ranging inquiry spanning at least nine years, found dozens of rogue detectives in the employ of organised crime and operating with “virtual immunity”. The “long-term intelligence development operation” included information on police corruption originally gathered by 17 other investigations – including Operation Othona, the contents of which were inexplicably shredded sometime around 2003. Crucially, Zloty included bombshell evidence from Othona about a “persistent network” of corrupt officers that could have been beneficial to a landmark review commissioned by the Home Secretary into how the Stephen Lawrence murder was handled by the Metropolitan Police. Mark Ellison QC was forced to inform Theresa May earlier this month that he could not finalise conclusions on whether police corruption tainted the Lawrence case because a “lorry-load” of Othona material was mysteriously shredded by the Met more than 10 years ago. I mean, I get that it's not terror related and all that but it's kinda important, isn't it??? Y'know, we're PAYING for all this shit. Could we not maybe USE it for something once in a while???
Exactly! Yet we trust these people with our data? The MET is totally rotten and sells our data to tabloids
I would have sworn that this thread would have resurfaced by now. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...e-used-heartbleed-bug-exposing-consumers.html
I ordered a backpack and UPS delivered two blocks away.... http://gizmodo.com/ups-just-delivered-a-400-000-drone-to-some-dude-by-mis-1572054473
http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/angela-merkel/affaere-merkel-handy-ermittlungen-36249548.bild.html Bump. Even though it was reported otherwise last week, the German attorney general has iniated criminal investigations in the case of NSA tapping the chancellor's cell phone. There seems to be basic information NSA deployed special personnel for spying on Merkel. That's explosive cause up until now the Obama administration only admitted they had run an automatic electronic surveillance progam.
bump cause New leaker disclosing U.S. secrets, government concludes http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/05/politics/u-s-new-leaker/ German counter-espionage working?
FBI orders Apple to hack Killer's phone, Apple refuses. Google and other tech companis sided with Apple. https://theintercept.com/2016/02/17/apple-leads-the-charge-on-security-but-who-will-follow/ After boldly and publicly rejecting a federal court order to hack an iPhone on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook could reasonably have wondered: Who’s with me? The Twitterverse was full of fans. Civil liberties activists were cheering him on. But in Silicon Valley, the initial response was less effusive. Google, the other tech behemoth that has promised to make encryption, security, and privacy a priority—but has stalled in implementing unbreakable encryption on its services by default—was notably silent for most of the day. But then Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed his support in a series of tweets: “Important post by @tim_cook,” he wrote. “Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy. We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders. But that’s wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent. Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue.” A handful of tech companies and leaders had joined Cook’s call by late afternoon. Among them were Mozilla, anonymous search engineDuckDuckGo, messaging application WhatsApp founder Jan Koum, anonymous browser Tor Project, a private jet charter company, and password managers 1Password and Dashlane. Who thinks the FBI is right? Should we require companies to open up our private info under the pretense of a crime? I do think that Apple and Google et al, are correct in challenging the order.
RELEASE: TOP SECRET NSA recording of private meeting between UN's Ban KiMoon and Germany's Angela Merkel https://t.co/RwOVWzozrQ @UN— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 23, 2016 NSA taps in on private meeting of Angela Merkel and Ban Ki Moon regarding fight against climate change. Intention: protecting US oil companies.
Good discussion and links here https://www.schneier.com/ The FBI's demands are specific to one phone, which might make its request seem reasonable if you don't consider the technological implications: Authorities have the phone in their lawful possession, and they only need help seeing what's on it in case it can tell them something about how the San Bernardino shooters operated. But the hacked software the court and the FBI wants Apple to provide would be general. It would work on any phone of the same model. It has to. Make no mistake; this is what a backdoor looks like. This is an existing vulnerability in iPhone security that could be exploited by anyone. Especially this blogger explains how the FBI have publicly misrepresented what they are asking for. I’ve done both of these for law enforcement in the past: provided services, and developed a forensics tool. Providing a simple dump of a disk image only involves my giving testimony of my technique. My forensics tools, however, required a much thorough process that took significant resources, and they would for Apple too. The tool must be designed and developed under much more stringent practices that involve reproducible, predictable results, extensive error checking, documentation, adequate logging of errors, and so on. The tool must be forensically sound and not change anything on the target, or document every change that it makes / is made in the process. Full documentation must be written that explains the methods and techniques used to disable Apple’s own security features. The tool cannot simply be some throw-together to break a PIN; it must be designed in a manner in which its function can be explained, and its methodology could be reproduced by independent third parties. Since FBI is supposedly the ones to provide the PIN codes to try, Apple must also design and develop an interface / harness to communicate PINs into the tool, which means added engineering for input validation, protocol design, more logging, error handling, and so on. FBI has asked to do this wirelessly (possibly remotely), which also means transit encryption, validation, certificate revocation, and so on. Once the tool itself is designed, it must be tested internally on a number of devices with exactly matching versions of hardware and operating system, and peer reviewed internally to establish a pool of peer-review experts that can vouch for the technology. In my case, it was a bunch of scientists from various government agencies doing the peer-review for me. The test devices will be imaged before and after, and their disk images compared to ensure that no bits were changed; changes that do occur from the operating system unlocking, logging, etc., will need to be documented so they can be explained to the courts. Bugs must be addressed. The user interface must be simplified and robust in its error handling so that it can be used by third parties. So in light of the demand of sound forensic science, the Department of Justice’s outrageous arguments seem quite inaccurate. In essence, Apple are not providing a service here (as in previous cases where they simply decrypted the device with a copy of the key). If the tool is to be forensically valid in Court, it essentially means distributing a hack.
Guy on news radio this morning said Bill Gates has come out in favor of the FBI on this. Bad Bill. Not only for being wrong on this, but for making me like Apple in any way. Maybe, like the initial reports of what the FBI asked for and wants, the news was completely inaccurate. The thing that gets me most is that almost no-one thinks there will be anything on this phone in the first place, this is the guy's work phone, they "destroyed" their personal phones.
I didn't think it was possible for me to hate Microsoft more. I realize that Bill is really no longer involved, but he got that stench on him long ago, and it's a sticky stench. Still despise Apple more than just about anything, but at least they're right about this (even though at the end of the day, it's for cynical reasons).
In the end, especially if the customer starts using their own private encryption keys, why should there be a back door? Then the encryption is essentially flawed. the FBI requires apple to push an update to your phone and bingo, they are in its hard to see how this would not end up being a scalable exploit