Facebook Secret Messaging
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,073
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
Not all that surprised tbh about Facebook.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37574648
Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, AOL are all in bed with the govts, FBI, NSA, GCHQ etc, no matter how "private" your messaging is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37574648
Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, AOL are all in bed with the govts, FBI, NSA, GCHQ etc, no matter how "private" your messaging is.
Something like this then?
Yeah, I'm sure it's being used for "anti-terrorism", along with anything from corporate espionage to anything else the US government want.
The above is one of the primary reasons companies are removing themselves form the chain and providing a platform that they themselves cannot read or access. Most companies like these are American based international companies, and it's not very good for them to be seen to be at the beck and call of the US government. It's not going to help you get customers in Russia for example (or many other countries for that matter.
So as much as it's about privacy its also about deniability and business. There are only so many times a warrant canary can be removed/die before people start avoiding your company.
Edit: seems I'm a ginger step child. In my defence this was supposed to be posted 2 hours ago.
Last edited:
Something like this then?
Yeah, I'm sure it's being used for "anti-terrorism", along with anything from corporate espionage to anything else the US government want.
The above is one of the primary reasons companies are removing themselves form the chain and providing a platform that they themselves cannot read or access. Most companies like these are American based international companies, and it's not very good for them to be seen to be at the beck and call of the US government. It's not going to help you get customers in Russia for example (or many other countries for that matter.
So as much as it's about privacy its also about deniability and business. There are only so many times a warrant canary can be removed/die before people start avoiding your company.
Edit: seems I'm a ginger step child. In my defence this was supposed to be posted 2 hours ago.
My major point is.. The issue with Big Data is purely one of volume.. They may be able to intercept millions of e-mails with key-words that are relevant.. a human being cannot read them, they are interpreted by a computer and then usefull data is produced to generate further income.
but your spouse probbably wont have security clearance, so good enough for most peoples FB use.
Reminds me of people at work. Some who refuse to sign into Skype for business or request it to be uninstalled as they don't want "big brother" "knowing" what they're doing.
I've always argued well if they're working, then what is the actual issue? And secondly, why assume that IT can automatically see 100% of what you're doing just because you're signed into S4B?
And thirdly, what makes them think we just sit there somehow invisibly monitoring everything they're doing all day?
I've always argued well if they're working, then what is the actual issue? And secondly, why assume that IT can automatically see 100% of what you're doing just because you're signed into S4B?
And thirdly, what makes them think we just sit there somehow invisibly monitoring everything they're doing all day?
If this is the sort of rubbish they are teaching you, then you need to ask for your tuition fees back:
There have been countless incidents of mass data extracts been stolen by hackers, that had nothing to do with 'using authentication protocols'. Target lost something like 40 million sets of credit cards details, potentially causing billions in fraudulent transactions. Can you imagine what would happen if some of the 'big data' you think isn't a problem fell into the hands of a hacker?
That's to say nothing of the privacy implications of a government being able to search this data at will to zero-in on a particular person, which is entirely possible.
Yeah what is with people using obfuscated links? Could link to a child porn or malware site for all I know.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
It's not real life?
Read John Suller's papers on the online disinhibition effect.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Mastercard have stated there has been precisely zero fraudulent transactions attributed to that breach.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
My mate even contacted Google to get his house blurred on Google Street View. Apparently he's on Facebook but I'm not close enough a mate to know his pseudonym
It's obfuscated by definition, regardless of the reason.
Links such as that in the OP should be moderated. That would be an actual good use of moderation time compared to the norm.
Not willing to click.
I'll just listen and believe the bloke that studies at uni and knows his **** therefore
The biggest mistake you are making is replying to it! I advise you ignore
Not willing to click.
I'll just listen and believe the bloke that studies at uni and knows his **** therefore
The biggest mistake you are making is replying to it! I advise you ignore
I get that people behave differently, but for people to refer to it as not being real life just contributes towards that problem. It's still real life, just the dynamics are a bit different with a lot of people.
That's why I said 'potentially'. Blocks of card details were going on Ukrainian hacker sites for thousands shortly after the breech. Also, they can't possibly know that for sure, but the card companies between them spent something like $300 million issuing new cards which was bad enough in and of itself.
More like 800 years.