- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
If you have nothing to hide then there isn't a problem.
If there was trust then there is nothing to spy on, but it shows they do not trust you, so why should you trust them.
NSA has "back door" into Google, Apple, Facebook and others
- Thread starter MookJong
- Start date
If there was trust then there is nothing to spy on, but it shows they do not trust you, so why should you trust them.
Facebook and Google have either formed a joint statement or they have been fed the lines they must state...suspicious.
Look here, this shows that the same sentences have been used in both...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mv06t60fV9YclwHzFmDOEk2wGGBj-jd5od7cS-I-d6E/mobilebasic?pli=1
Look here, this shows that the same sentences have been used in both...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mv06t60fV9YclwHzFmDOEk2wGGBj-jd5od7cS-I-d6E/mobilebasic?pli=1
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
So what they have been doing becomes legal and they can carry on doing it.
Load of utter tripe. He's saying exactly what he's been told to say.
The Illuminati is getting too obvious these days.
Yep. 100% correct that they have been fed what to say.
What the hell would the Chief Legal Officer know about back-doors anyway? Utter stupidity. It's the wrong bloody department LOL.
How the hell would even a CEO know if a rogue developer had infiltrated their organisation?
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Indirect access is already publicly acknowledged - google has a procedure for governments to request data. They even publishes the numbers of requests made/requests they've declined etc...
The whole point of this story is the direct access to data - circumventing the processes in place...
Yea because some yoof from the east London massive has all the facts and his finger on the troooof....
So what would a Legal Professional know about Computer Security?
And how would a CEO know if a rogue developer had doctored the code?
If you're going to argue with me at least refute the two very simple points I made.
Last edited:
You don't have a clue about how a corporate structure works so what is the point. The pilot doesn't know when the plane is low on coffee but he knows who to ask.
LOL thought so
I have studied business. I know exactly how corporate structure works thank you very much - and that's got absolutely nothing to do with the point anyway so I don't know why you're saying I don't know how corporate structure works ??
The point I was making is that a CEO or CLO would have absolutely no idea if a rogue developer had included a backdoor during their software development. What's hard to understand about that?
I know you don't know anything about computer security (and no I don't mean keeping your antivirus up to date) but I would never have brought that up.
Last edited:
That doesn't explain how a Legal Officer would be able to find or expose a backdoor. You do realise that there's a chance that even the best hackers in the world wouldn't be able to expose a particular backdoor unless they knew the exact thing they were looking for. And you're telling me a Legal Dept would know? How? By going over the source code?... No.
Because of the silly point you made.LOL thought so
I have studied business. I know exactly how corporate structure works thank you very much - and that's got absolutely nothing to do with the point anyway so I don't know why you're saying I don't know how corporate structure works ??
How would you know that first off, but it is an irrelevance as they simply need to know who to ask or how to find out. You are implying they need to personally have the ability to establish this as individuals? So then, back to my point about you lacking knowledge...
This makes no sense to me.
Definitely. You are absolutely right. I take that back it was a heat of the moment comment in response to a troll attempt.
But the point I was making is that backdoors are pretty much impossible to detect. Even hiring 20 of the best cryptography/security experts in the world and there's no guarantee they'd find anything.
I think the crux of the issue is did these companies willingly support covert access to their systems as the PowerPoint seems to imply or did the government simply do it themselves or is it a hoax. If it is the first, which I doubt, it's the companies issue and a HUGE one if proven. If it's the middle one it's the governments issue and a BIG one and if it's the third it's a cover up as it could never simply be a hoax to perhaps aid the personal freedoms argument as the good guys would never do that....
The rapid corporate denials suggest the first is highly unlikely and I suspect the 2nd is unlikely to the extent suggested. Who knows about the third...
The rapid corporate denials suggest the first is highly unlikely and I suspect the 2nd is unlikely to the extent suggested. Who knows about the third...
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,250
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
As above.
Erm, hardly the same that...
Personally if I wanted my data to be more secure I wouldn't trust another company to host it for free, on a website / database and servers I have 0 control over, but perhaps that's just me....
GCHQ looking through someone's mailbox vs a random joe public is two very different things.
Some people seem to be under the impression GCHQ plays lucky dip, picks a mailbox at random and goes reading....
Yep. That would be terribly inefficient and borderline retarded if their aim was to actually get some meaningful intelligence.
If their aim was to have a laugh then yeah I guess lucky dip could provide them with lulz
.ok how about we take a look at it from a slightly different angle.
say a whistle blower or union activist is kicking up a stink over something the government is doing and its getting close to a general election. at what point do you think these measures would be used/abused to find dirt on said individual or group of people.
yes yes its all tinfoil hat speculation but as has been shown from the whole black listing of union members in the building trade from the 70's and 80's this stuff does happen and god only knows how hard specific politicians would fight to hold on to their bit of power.
the bigger question over all of this is, do you really trust politicians to use the system and the information they get for the good of the people. remember these are the same people who have defrauded the uk tax payer while still claiming "its within the rules".
say a whistle blower or union activist is kicking up a stink over something the government is doing and its getting close to a general election. at what point do you think these measures would be used/abused to find dirt on said individual or group of people.
yes yes its all tinfoil hat speculation but as has been shown from the whole black listing of union members in the building trade from the 70's and 80's this stuff does happen and god only knows how hard specific politicians would fight to hold on to their bit of power.
the bigger question over all of this is, do you really trust politicians to use the system and the information they get for the good of the people. remember these are the same people who have defrauded the uk tax payer while still claiming "its within the rules".
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,397
I'm sorry is evceryone insane or just couldn't be bothered to actually read anything? They aren't gathering any content only times, numbers and locations. The system seems to be less about listening in to conversations and more about building a map of who knows who and when they communicate.
Furthermore why is everyone under the impression that 6000 odd people in Cheltenham are listening in to the phone calls and reading the emails of everyone in the UK? The only country that has enough staff for an operation that large is China.
Basically if you dont talk to known terrorists the chances of the NSA or GCHQ wanting to even acknowledge your existance is zero. Therefore the people saying "I have nothing to hide" are fully justified in thinking they are ok because why would anyone want to snoop on someone who does nothing wrong. There are bigger fish for that few people to fry (drug trafficing, illegal weapon sales, terrorism, etc etc) than spying on random people or industrial espionage on behalf of the government.
Also you may all want to read this which was refered to briefly in the BBC news article but I bet nobody read:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/gchq
There are only three things they can use their powers to do:
Protect the country/armed forces
Prevent johnny foreigner buggering up our economics
Stopping organised crime
Where in there, legally, can they just look at the emails of random citizens?
Furthermore why is everyone under the impression that 6000 odd people in Cheltenham are listening in to the phone calls and reading the emails of everyone in the UK? The only country that has enough staff for an operation that large is China.
Basically if you dont talk to known terrorists the chances of the NSA or GCHQ wanting to even acknowledge your existance is zero. Therefore the people saying "I have nothing to hide" are fully justified in thinking they are ok because why would anyone want to snoop on someone who does nothing wrong. There are bigger fish for that few people to fry (drug trafficing, illegal weapon sales, terrorism, etc etc) than spying on random people or industrial espionage on behalf of the government.
Also you may all want to read this which was refered to briefly in the BBC news article but I bet nobody read:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/gchq
There are only three things they can use their powers to do:
Protect the country/armed forces
Prevent johnny foreigner buggering up our economics
Stopping organised crime
Where in there, legally, can they just look at the emails of random citizens?
Last edited: