Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,779
- Location
- La France
Are how might "they" be intercepting all this information?
UK spy agency intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users
- Thread starter Amp34
- Start date
Are how might "they" be intercepting all this information?
Ever wondered why your mobile battery will sudden drain a load one afternoon for no apparent reason?
*mutters something about a webcam "hack" and VDSL modem backdoor*
How the hell am I supposed to know that? What we do know is that the NSA have direct access to the servers of Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, Google and others, and ordered Verizon and AT&T to hand over all their customer's metadata, who then complied. Now take that to the next logical level.
You really think, with the treasure trove of potential that smartphones possess, that they're not using them for that purpose? I would go so far as to say that is the only reason that smartphones exist. The iPhone 5S even has fingerprint recognition so they can guarantee it's you who is using it, and the battery is non-removable, meaning they can track it via GPS even when it's off [phones can still be tracked via GPS when they're off as long as the battery remains inside]. You can mock all you like, a few months down the line this will be revealed and all the evidence is already staring you in the face.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Which is why we have laws. You know, like rights of privacy, human rights, that kind of stuff. It used to be a Big Thing. Toppled a few off their pedestals.
Funny though, governments are OK to bend the rules, but individuals, organisations (private snooping, NotW scandal, Snowden, whistleblowers, Wikileaks, your creepy neighbor, ect...) aren't. Why is that. Oh that's right, it's for your own good.
Not that I'm surprised, that's what government agencies do and always have done, but then again they are supposedly accountable and not above the law. They do not respect your rights as an individual, nor the law. That alone should be enough. Do not give them a free pass.
Oh, and encryption everywhere. You wouldn't send a letter without an envelope. You have to wonder why the default mode of any internet communication, let it be email, video calls, phone calls, browsing, is 'not secured'.
Last edited:
Actually, after we leave the EU we loose the right to privacy because there is no current legislation in England and Wales to my knowledge that gives us the right to privacy.
FTFY.
What they want, is for me to not know I'm being spied on in the first place.
I don't agree with the way they are going about it, but there is realistically nothing I can do about it. I can cover the most obvious tracks I leave using various tools but I'm confident they could swat those precautions aside if they *really* need to know what I'm up to
And yet, I still don't care less if the government rifles though my life or not
You should go and live in Dubai. Or somewhere equally ******
Absolutely. You cannot hide completely. Not unless you cease to use wired/wireless communication altogether. No email, no phone, no internet.
If you do use those tools, you can lessen the damage by not using Skype, WhatsApp, Twitter, certaintly not Facebook and being cautious of what you divulge over email, phone and text - and elsewhere on the net as long as there is a login that can be traced to you. And if you do want to have an absolutely private conversation, make sure it is in person with another and that your phones are both well out of reach.
To hide completely requires full knowledge of the surveillance techniques in use its not impossible.
Theres more ways to communicate and use the internet than email, etc. and I don't mean TOR or any of that "deep net" ******** (PS IRC has been monitored since atleast 2003 probably before that).
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
The point wouldn't be to hide the content completely (unless you really need to), but have some legal leverage. Once you secure communications, so that the information is encrypted and should only be viewed by trusted partners (no matter how weak or strong it is), prying open that lock is a violation of privacy. It shows intent, and you'll have no legal fall backs.
Now then, storing that encrypted message away would be another matter. The difference between say, a letter to a email, is that the message can be copied and stored away without having to break the seal. To copy a letter, you'd have to break open the envelope.
Now, would you trust a government agency with storing that kind of 'sealed' information? With them not having a looksie once in a while? Even without a tiny-weeny little court order?
ATM, they feel entitled to that information, since it's 'in the air'. They just have bigger ears than anyone else. So basically, nothing of consequence will happen, it's all above board. Disgusting peeping-tomfoolery and a violation of public trust, but in all probability, legal. Just don't try it yourself!
Now then, storing that encrypted message away would be another matter. The difference between say, a letter to a email, is that the message can be copied and stored away without having to break the seal. To copy a letter, you'd have to break open the envelope.
Now, would you trust a government agency with storing that kind of 'sealed' information? With them not having a looksie once in a while? Even without a tiny-weeny little court order?
ATM, they feel entitled to that information, since it's 'in the air'. They just have bigger ears than anyone else. So basically, nothing of consequence will happen, it's all above board. Disgusting peeping-tomfoolery and a violation of public trust, but in all probability, legal. Just don't try it yourself!
Are you fine with someone putting a camera in your bedroom just to make sure you aren't one? The images will be uploaded to a server but we promise we may not look at them, unless our really poor recognition software things you may look like someone else.
For once the idea of someone coming in to your house to have a look round isn't that far off what actually happened...
Interesting point in the comments too, many of those captured will be underage meaning the largest repository of child pornography may be on GCHQs servers... Maybe the police should go in and check. If there is any on there maybe those that authorised it could be tried for posession of illegal pornography... "Research" isn't a valid argument...
Disturbing, but not surprising any more.
People should be more outraged that by their own admission, all the billions they have spent and all the personal privacy they have destroyed and it has not helped to stop a single terrorist attack.
But then anyone who believes that's what it's for is probably not the person to be outraged by government violations of trust to begin with
People should be more outraged that by their own admission, all the billions they have spent and all the personal privacy they have destroyed and it has not helped to stop a single terrorist attack.
But then anyone who believes that's what it's for is probably not the person to be outraged by government violations of trust to begin with
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Ah, but the Internet isn't your bedroom! You sent that information away on the interwebs. Well then, it's practically public (although it is not)!
Besides, they are probably more interested in the meta-data. Who you talk to, where from, what time, ect... That is more amenable to pattern searching. Bit like targeted / contextual advertisement.
Nothing surprises me anymore. I can't believe we are paying for this! This money could be going on hospitals/schools but instead it is going on taking and storing pictures of me and you. Do we want the government copying and storing photos of our children chatting to each other???