UK spy agency intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users

[phill1978]

Can you please go away, actually read up about what is going on and then come back please? You seem remarkably uninformed about the situation.

There are many good reasons why this wasn't published on day 1 (not least because they have hundreds of thousands of complicated documents to go through and figure out). Snowdown doesn't release these stories one-by-one to journalists - they have had all the data since the beginning.

I am surprised, that you, with your armchair expertise have determined that the document was 'probably a study'. Given the lack of denial from the government, and the past track records of the journalists involved, I think it very likely that this did indeed happen.

Sadly it would seem that people are actually paid to represent false viewpoints and manipulate online conversations. Setting up aged accounts just for this purpose.

another recent one:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/



you will get real trolls who are scouring the web and particularly tech sites providing misinformation, posing as someone else or redirecting the conversation.

sad, the internet is now ruined and has just become one fake information outlet. The vague truisms of Wikipedia have become the template for the rest of the web. We all knew the gov and corporations would mess it up sooner or later.

 

[jimferno]

could you miss the point anymore?

many people dont use facebook. Perhaps (maybe not in your mind) people dont look at porn either? does that give them the right to connect to your live cam in any room in your house and monitor your activity 24/7 without a warrant and a motive.

The internet is a public network, you choose to connect your devices to it. If you are so concerned about organisations collecting your information from it, you need to stop using it or protect yourself appropriately.

You're probably captured on CCTV hundreds of times throughout an average day, are you so worried about that too?

 

[phill1978]

The internet is a public network, you choose to connect your devices to it. If you are so concerned about organisations collecting your information from it, you need to stop using it or protect yourself appropriately.

You're probably captured on CCTV hundreds of times throughout an average day, are you so worried about that too?

oh look you missed the point again. and no im not 'worried' all of this is just discussion not fear.

there are clear differences between a 'secret' gathering of personal information including live footage from inside your home and going on internet cafe wifi / walking the streets / using public social media.

if you cant grasp that then your missing something very fundamental. I could ask you for everything personal in your life now, if you don’t care about this. But you might think screw you, I have the right not to give it to me? that is what is being removed here.. from you, right now. in this country. by paid workers like you and I who have social lives and interact and equally share stories.

Here is something to ponder (if you can) the police need a warrant to search your home which they do with their eyes like normal people, they need this rightly due to privacy laws and to stop abuses of power (bent cop just walking into your home and demanding things).
So, camera shots of each of your living rooms and their contents, live footage from your personal social interactions not publicly displayed to the world showing the contents of your room and your life .. no warrant.

of course, perhaps the technological fool who believed their online personal peer to peer interactions not on facebook, youtube or twitch were private just because they trusted yahoo for example (but MS are the same) to stop others watching was naive but hey.. thats now upto yahoo web cam users to choose a safer service in the knowledge that now anything that’s not encrypted or is part of a business and under our law has to hand over the goods.

Which means open source, peer to peer communications. which damages business profits in the end, hence the mass exodus from the US by large tech companies wanting to protect their customers.

 

[jimferno]

Here's how I see it, your internet enabled devices are like a window into your home. If you don't want people looking in, close the curtains or brick them up. You choose to own these devices and allow them to transmit data over a public network, you can't moan when this information is collected.

I wouldn't need a warrant to look through your windows into your house and see what's in your living room. I could even stand on the street and legally take pictures through your windows of your living room. Yes, this would be skirting on the edge of harassment or voyeurism but let's roll with this.

Lots of companies collect data on you and you probably don't even realise this. Tesco have a profile for every one of their club card members, they know when you shop, how often, how much and what you buy so they can better target deals and offers towards you.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, I do understand your concerns but until 'they' are caught out misusing any of this data there's not much you can do about it.

 

[phill1978]

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, I do understand your concerns but until 'they' are caught out misusing any of this data there's not much you can do about it.

yes there is. with regards to this story and others (if your into computers / tech that is and not just gaming)

Browsing = Firefox, ghostery, no script. (possibly a VPN service)
Router = Custom WRT / Tomato firmware (this is a must seen as Asus and others don’t give a fig about their backdoor security issues)
Email = PGP . Build your own email server from a £30 raspberryPi
Video = Use encrypted open source software OR put a cover over the lenses you have in your home when not in use or you are in a compromised position. Dont buy a big TV for the bedroom with a hd camera pointing at your bed.
Facebook = dont use it
Files and general data protection = use linux, enable the firewall and tick the box for encrypted home drive.
Cloud = only put non sensitive files on there.

VERY easy really. Only one thing is tricky and that is setting up email but there are excellent guides out there. Id expect most people on here to have at least half of that already, this is basic stuff for home computer protection.

the cost is almost nothing. This isnt just really to stop secret organisations peering in your windows but to stop sneaky marketing men and genuine hackers taking your information and selling it or opportunists trolls, card fraud etc..

those few simple tips raise the bar enough that privacy is resumed "enough" , im not saying you should have to.. quite the opposite but we are where we are. Its true I and probably most people have nothing of importance on their computers but boring family photos and some music, but exploiting a webcam and audio recording without consent is truly crossing the line.

Also if you stood outside my home and took pictures daily id walk out make sure you stopped, using old technology

 

[kwerk]

It's all just an excuse to skim tax money. The old create a problem and make people pay you to "solve it". All these quangos, politicians and half of the defense industry and all the rest, what do they actually produce or protect? Nothing, they make busy work for themselves.

 

[teaboy5]

yes there is. with regards to this story and others (if your into computers / tech that is and not just gaming)

Browsing = Firefox, ghostery, no script. (possibly a VPN service)
Router = Custom WRT / Tomato firmware (this is a must seen as Asus and others don’t give a fig about their backdoor security issues)
Email = PGP . Build your own email server from a £30 raspberryPi
Video = Use encrypted open source software OR put a cover over the lenses you have in your home when not in use or you are in a compromised position. Dont buy a big TV for the bedroom with a hd camera pointing at your bed.
Facebook = dont use it
Files and general data protection = use linux, enable the firewall and tick the box for encrypted home drive.
Cloud = only put non sensitive files on there.

VERY easy really. Only one thing is tricky and that is setting up email but there are excellent guides out there. Id expect most people on here to have at least half of that already, this is basic stuff for home computer protection.

the cost is almost nothing. This isnt just really to stop secret organisations peering in your windows but to stop sneaky marketing men and genuine hackers taking your information and selling it or opportunists trolls, card fraud etc..

those few simple tips raise the bar enough that privacy is resumed "enough" , im not saying you should have to.. quite the opposite but we are where we are. Its true I and probably most people have nothing of importance on their computers but boring family photos and some music, but exploiting a webcam and audio recording without consent is truly crossing the line.

Also if you stood outside my home and took pictures daily id walk out make sure you stopped, using old technology

All of the above is over kill for the home user. They don't care and never will.

Who in their right mind is going to take the time to start using PGP for their email, considering the person the other end needs it as well. GHCQ are not out to get you nor do they care what emails you're sending to jimmy down the road.

 

[teaboy5]

oh look you missed the point again. and no im not 'worried' all of this is just discussion not fear.

there are clear differences between a 'secret' gathering of personal information including live footage from inside your home and going on internet cafe wifi / walking the streets / using public social media.

if you cant grasp that then your missing something very fundamental. I could ask you for everything personal in your life now, if you don’t care about this. But you might think screw you, I have the right not to give it to me? that is what is being removed here.. from you, right now. in this country. by paid workers like you and I who have social lives and interact and equally share stories.

Here is something to ponder (if you can) the police need a warrant to search your home which they do with their eyes like normal people, they need this rightly due to privacy laws and to stop abuses of power (bent cop just walking into your home and demanding things).
So, camera shots of each of your living rooms and their contents, live footage from your personal social interactions not publicly displayed to the world showing the contents of your room and your life .. no warrant.

of course, perhaps the technological fool who believed their online personal peer to peer interactions not on facebook, youtube or twitch were private just because they trusted yahoo for example (but MS are the same) to stop others watching was naive but hey.. thats now upto yahoo web cam users to choose a safer service in the knowledge that now anything that’s not encrypted or is part of a business and under our law has to hand over the goods.

Which means open source, peer to peer communications. which damages business profits in the end, hence the mass exodus from the US by large tech companies wanting to protect their customers.

There has been no mass exodus of tech companies from the US at all. Infact there are many stories saying very little has changed at all.

I mean no harm, but you come across as someone who goes out of their to secure things that really don't matter. Do you encrypt all your emails?

 

[MookJong]

Maybe I missed it but did anyone create a thread about this:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive1_nbc_document.pdf

This is the most bizarre and questionable of all the leaks so far. This is a set of tools to discredit individuals, corporations and organisations using some incredibly underhand and shady tactics.

Why was this not in the 6pm news? Or was it and I missed it?

 

[Destination]

The internet is a public network, you choose to connect your devices to it. If you are so concerned about organisations collecting your information from it, you need to stop using it or protect yourself appropriately.
You're probably captured on CCTV hundreds of times throughout an average day, are you so worried about that too?

Ridiculous statement.

One doesn't expect to be on face time with a relative or friends and have ones images captured without knowledge by any governmental agency either here or abroad.

It isn't remotely the same as random capture by CCTV while passing a camera in the street.

Whilst parts of the internet are public, paying for a connection to it, using a private piece of software in ones own home, talking to face timing with someone else in a private environment with direct requests is completely different to publicising items on public forums or public you tube style sites.
Can you not see the difference?

 

[phill1978]

Ridiculous statement.

One doesn't expect to be on face time with a relative or friends and have ones images captured without knowledge by any governmental agency either here or abroad.

It isn't remotely the same as random capture by CCTV while passing a camera in the street.

Whilst parts of the internet are public, paying for a connection to it, using a private piece of software in ones own home, talking to face timing with someone else in a private environment with direct requests is completely different to publicising items on public forums or public you tube style sites.
Can you not see the difference?

i refer to mookjong's post, perhaps some people will never agree for a reason

 

[Amp34]

No it really isn't... its looking at someone's face on a still from a webcam in order to compare with another face and identify the person behind the ID and who they communicate with...

I agree, it is specifically that. GCHQ have taken every citizens right to privacy and thrown it out the window. The argument is not necessarily the technique, it's how it was used. Two people using a program to talk and see each others webcam is a fundimentally private activity. GCHQ ignored that and collected images from millions of users, not a few dozen th at are believed to have done wrong but millions of innocent people, many doing things they are doing because they believe they are in private surroundings, much like they should be in their bedroom.

Considering many would have been in their bedroom when chatting to each other this really is like GCHQ having videocameras installed in innocent people's bedrooms just to make sure you weren't somewhere else. The whole idea that the system just stores the information and only shows possible matching faces has nothing to do with it. The point is GCHQ have invaded millions of people's right to privacy* without cause.

* just because it's an electronic means of communication doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to privacy.

They are tracking specific targets they can cast the net a bit wider and store data passively... they're not looking at data for ****s and giggles and they still require specific legal authorisation to actually look at that data as far as individuals in the UK are concerned.

A bit wider would be accidently catching a few thousand innocent individuals that may have communicated with targets at one point. This is wholesale collection of a significant portion of Yahoo users. It would be interesting to know the proportion of active yahoo users over that time period this represents.

Just because the law says it's OK doesnt mean the law is right. The laws covering this are not fit for purpose in the modern world and have been seen to be unfit in many other countries. Having said that, much like the previous revelations, this may be borderline or wholely illegal as well. Unfortunately the inquires are whitewashed in the UK with many witnesses deciding they just weren't going to give evidence and answer questions.

There is talk of many going to court to test the law, unfortunately I don't see it going anywhere as the case would be thrown out in the name of "national security" and/or any relevant evidence would be given in secret...

 

[Amp34]

Utter rot Dowie.
You serious think they collected 1.8 million images of random folks using yahoo and stored it without looking at any of it. Then sought a warrent each time they wished to view a picture.

Catch yourself on.

Just how would you propose they realised how much of the content they intercepted was pornography if they were not looking?
Utter rot.

Not 1.8 million images.

Images from 1.8 million USER ACCOUNTS. It's probably billions of images all in.

 

[Amp34]

nope I said they require legal authorisation re: individuals in the UK... there are other people in the world who are not in the UK



Who said they didn't look at any of it?

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that because, much like all of the other data collected, it is also viewable by other nations security services. They just ask each other to do the work on their own citizens. It's why the links between the internationalsl security agencies are being looked into by several countries (excluding the UK). They bypass the law, hence the suggestion that the law isn't fit for purpose.

Either way they were/are still collecting billions of images of millions of innocent people who are using a technology that they believe is inherently private.

Let's ask another question. If this wasn't GCHQ but an individual or company collecting this data, including underage material, what would happen if they were found out?

Trial for multiple offences, conviction and probably jail for a long time.

 

[Lysander]

Looks like anyone who was suspiscious of the Xbox [myself included] were correct:

one presentation discusses with interest the potential and capabilities of the Xbox 360's Kinect camera, saying it generated "fairly normal webcam traffic" and was being evaluated as part of a wider program.

Documents previously revealed in the Guardian showed the NSA were exploring the video capabilities of game consoles for surveillance purposes.

So when it says "and was being evaluated as part of a wider program" I would imagine that means already is being used.

As one user points out in that article one should be wary of "pretty much anything with a camera on it."

I don't even keep my phone in the same room anymore. This isn't even speculation by this point.

 

[Lysander]

Here's another reason why I don't use Chrome. A 'bug' causes it to listen to everything through your computer's mic.

 

[phill1978]

Looks like anyone who was suspiscious of the Xbox [myself included] were correct:



So when it says "and was being evaluated as part of a wider program" I would imagine that means already is being used.

As one user points out in that article one should be wary of "pretty much anything with a camera on it."

I don't even keep my phone in the same room anymore. This isn't even speculation by this point.

the sadness is this is how most people will now operate.

 

[arc@css]

 

[Woden]

Unfortunately it's not as simple as that because, much like all of the other data collected, it is also viewable by other nations security services. They just ask each other to do the work on their own citizens. It's why the links between the internationalsl security agencies are being looked into by several countries (excluding the UK). They bypass the law, hence the suggestion that the law isn't fit for purpose.

Either way they were/are still collecting billions of images of millions of innocent people who are using a technology that they believe is inherently private.

Let's ask another question. If this wasn't GCHQ but an individual or company collecting this data, including underage material, what would happen if they were found out?

Trial for multiple offences, conviction and probably jail for a long time.

Its a government agency, the laws don't apply in the same way. Its a ridiculous statement to suggest they do.

It's billions of images but only a tiny infinitesimal fraction of are looked at by a real person. Software will do the rest.

 

[Amp34]

Its a government agency, the laws don't apply in the same way. Its a ridiculous statement to suggest they do.

The law applies to them as much as everyone else. They are governed by different laws in many cases yet they are still pushing (and breaking) those boundaries. Unfortunately when the investigations are shut down/neutered by the Secretary of State we can't actually find out for definite if they are breaking the law.

It's billions of images but only a tiny infinitesimal fraction of are looked at by a real person. Software will do the rest.

So you are fine with a government sanctioned organisation putting a camera in your bedroom, as long as the images sent to their servers are only looked at by Software with only a small chance* of them being looked at by humans?

*Considering they had major problems with lots of pornographic material being seen by their staff the idea that only terrorists are being screened seems a little odd... Do terrorists communicate by penis and breast movements now?