Forum menu
At least I am not watching Big Brother...
{shudders at idea of it}
I totally agree with the OP.
I want to know what papa smurf does....
What would surprise me is the assertion that they can't do these things.
I totally agree with the OP
Me too.
Although I'm having to guess what he thinks because he didn't say.
Maybe I'll bug his phone and find out.
Been saying it for years (in a non tinfoil hat way) why do you think phones don't have shutters across camera lenses
He can watch me all he likes, I can't imagine I'd hold his interest for very long...
Hmm... So all phones have the same exploit? So it's either put there deliberately by the manufacturer, or it's something that hasn't been patched?
I doubt this could be kept secret or in "safe" hands. Nothing would actually surprise me, but there's a lot of questions about this that make me very suspicious of the report.
My smartphone battery is always dead so they are welcome to try!
'Nothing to hide/nothing to fear' folk – is there a line that you think governments should not cross?
We've gone from landlines to granular phone surveillance, and letters to routine monitoring of email metadata, so where do you sit on future tech, i.e. internet of things, networked homes, car interiors, smart TVs, wearable tech, etc?
Is there any part of your life you prefer to be kept private?*
[i]Not meant in accusatory manner, I'm genuinely interested in changing privacy norms. [/i]
A lot of people already share WAAAAAY too much info on social media, so a lot of people have very strange views on privacy.
For myself, I say and do a lot of stupid stuff in many aspects of my life. I genuinely don't care if Big Brother is watching me. If I've broken a law, I might get punished for it. If I didn't want to get punished, I wouldn't do it. I don't do anything that I wouldn't be prepared to face up to in public, even if it was embarrassing.
Obviously other people are more sensitive about their views, hobbies and niche interests, and I don't speak for them.
Nothing to hide/nothing to fear' folk – is there a line that you think governments should not cross?
For me personally, I'm not bothered.
They can look at all my stuff and listen to all my phone calls if they like.
I genuinely don't care if they do, and in a way presumed they could if they wished to anyway.
My smartphone battery is always dead so they are welcome to try!
They've got a tool for that too presumably.
Jeez, what a load of bollox. Has Mr Snowden a history of imbibing in controlled substances? His paranoia level is disturbingly high.
Governments seem to expect to be able to operate behind cloaks of secrecy for their own actions but do little to protect the privacy of those they are meant to serve. If nothing else it is demonstrates hypocrisy.
His paranoia level is disturbingly high.
He even thinks the US government is out to get him.
No flies on you MSP 😉
why do you think phones don't have shutters across camera lenses
Because that would be unrequired moving parts that would add cost and break easily?
Seems a more obvious answer than GCHQ wanting to take secretive photos of my pocket lining.
As for the rest of it.. well it wouldn't surprise me. Certainly the possibility of a remote "open mic" command has been talked about pretty much since people started carrying phones.
But I doubt it is widespread. Aside from the technical aspects and likeliehood of getting caught, it is also just waaaaay too much data. Much more likely that specific persons of interest are given dodgy phones or are specifically targeted with exploits.
I think the argument over the sheer volume of data is key here - you can record every call, message and phone call, but you can't do sweet FA with that volume of data en masse.
Once it's recorded, you can mine it for any key messages, phrases or persons of interest that are worth looking at properly. 99% of what you have is then junk and not worth checking. Another reason that I'm not too paranoid about the whole thing.
Very few of my emails have started "My dear friend Osama..." Not in the last couple of years, at least...... 😉
For me personally, I'm not bothered.They can look at all my stuff and listen to all my phone calls if they like.
I genuinely don't care if they do
That's probably because you don't think you'll ever do anything to upset the government. And that's excellent of course.
But how do you feel about other people who might say or do things which might upset governments, do you support the UK government's ability to spy on them and stop them ?
Do you trust politicians so much that you feel no one should be allowed to upset or investigate them ?
That's probably because you don't think you'll ever do anything to upset the government. And that's excellent of course.
Wait until the govt starts predicting what you're going to do and prevent crimes before they happen.
Assuming that that kind of exploit is technically possible and he's not just invented it, I'd rather GCHQ took over my phone than a criminal gang. I don't have anything on it to interest the spooks, but I don't want my bank details hacked. GCHQ spying on the criminals might protect me.
Either we all protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists, or we let Government do it for us - in which case, we have to accept that they need to watch the bad guys. Privacy costs - why worry if you've nothing to hide? In my view, Snowden had done a lot of harm; terrorist attacks will happen that could have been stopped.
The final question to decide this is "Do you want rolling 24 hour news coverage of how the security services failed to prevent a tragedy, or do you want rolling 24 hour news coverage of how awful their new powers are?"
do you trust politicians so much that you feel no one should be allowed to upset or investigate them ?
That's quite an impressive leap, to get that conclusion, from what what I actually said.
Privacy costs - why worry if you've nothing to hide?
Give me a shout next time you and your missus are having sex, I'll pop round to watch. Or, have you got something to hide?
Protecting against terrorism is important of course, but that doesn't mean that privacy isn't. Criminals might well value their security but that same security is what protects the rest of us from those criminals.
To put that another way; what happens when the terrorists work out how to smurf our phones?
Snowden was right in my opinion to reveal the level of covert intrusion into our personal communication, there is absolutely zero justification to have such an overall mass survelience and control program in place.
The sooner we all use pgp encryption for communication the better
That's quite an impressive leap, to get that conclusion, from what what I actually said.
It was not a conclusion but a question. In fact that's quite an impressive leap to conclude from my question that I had come to that conclusion**
You can still answer the question if you want.....do you trust politicians so much that you feel no one should be allowed to upset or investigate them ?
** I suspect that you probably don't.
Your mixing up two things.
I don't mind GCHQ having the ability to listen in on people when needed.
I do mind politicians abusing that power for their own ends.
Two different things.
Well my phone is running open source firmware - I'd like to think that if such exploits exist they would have been spotted in the source code when it was ported from google. I suppose it is possible that they're so clever and deeply embedded that they're not obvious to people doing that, but then at some point you have the issue which all conspiracy theories have - the number of people who would have to know and have to be kept silent, in this case people working outside the security services within Google and Apple.
I'm not saying it's not possible, or that the feature doesn't exist on some phones, but for those who are worried I reckon a good first step would be to root your phone with a custom ROM.
Either we all protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists, or we let Government do it for us - in which case, we have to accept that they need to watch the bad guys. Privacy costs - why worry if you've nothing to hide? In my view, Snowden had done a lot of harm; terrorist attacks will happen that could have been stopped.
[img] 
[/img]
Assuming that that kind of exploit is technically possible and he's not just invented it
You should probably look into the matter a bit more... in addition to the technology side of it, there are even [url= https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ ]Covert Agents who Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations [/url]
Here is a Ted talk by Glen Greenwald if anyone is interested...
[b]aracer[/b]
the number of people who would have to know and have to be kept silent, in this case people working outside the security services within Google and Apple.
That's exactly what a Section 5 warrant can do. Old Edward likes to swoop the cloak but the reality is that when an individual falls under the gaze of the intelligence community, these companies will often offer up information once a request has been made via the Home Office.
It's things like warrants and the due process he fails to mention, mainly because it makes his version of events seem nefarious and exploitative.
I don't mind GCHQ having the ability to listen in on people when needed.I do mind politicians abusing that power for their own ends.
Surely it's the politicians who control GCHQ, or at least the government? If they don't then that's even more worrying.
And there have been plenty of examples of people going about their lawful business being placed under surveillance.
I'm not happy about governments having increased powers and abilities of surveillance, even though I can't envisaged that it might be detrimental to me at a purely personally level.
Double edged sword there Ernie. The government have tacit control, or else you'd be moaning that they're a law unto themselves and operating outside of the control of elected officials!
not happy about governments having increased powers and abilities of surveillance, even though I can't envisaged that it might be detrimental to me at a purely personally level.
fair enough. I have a different opinion.
No moose, I can't imagine moaning about the security services, and other agencies that deal with surveillance, being under democratic control and accountability.
Abuse of power by elected politicians is a completely different issue.
Surely it's the politicians who control GCHQ, or at least the government?
It's more likely to be the NSA.
the security services, and other agencies that deal with surveillance, being under democratic control and accountability
There is blurred lines when you factor in secret societies such as freemasons...
It's more likely to be the NSA.
Fair point, but worth remembering that the majority shareholder of Booz Hamilton Allen, who Snowden was working for, is [url= http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=carlyle_group ]The Carlyle Group[/url], which has several key players behind the scenes, beyond the democratic process:
[quote=moose ]That's exactly what a Section 5 warrant can do. Old Edward likes to swoop the cloak but the reality is that when an individual falls under the gaze of the intelligence community, these companies will often offer up information once a request has been made via the Home Office.
You're talking about something rather different there. This isn't about extracting information from Google and Apple, it's about having people insert exploit code in such a way that it is undetectable to other people looking at the code - or at least that everybody who might look at the code is also within the circle of secrecy. In the case of Google you're also talking about open source code, so the circle of people looking at the code is somewhat out of the control of the security services.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but I have a distinct dubious feeling about this - helped on by not being able to find anybody in the open source community discussing it (OK, I did a google search, which big brother probably fixed).
Nor would I want to dismiss the general issues Snowden is raising - it always strikes me that a lot of these measures are far more likely to be used against relatively normal people. Unless I'm attributing too much intelligence to the baddies - if I was wanting to do international terrorism and avoid having my comms intercepted it wouldn't be terribly difficult to avoid a lot of this stuff.
(I've probably said too much - if I'm not on here again you'll know what's happened)
In the case of Google you're also talking about open source code
I would imagine [i]if[/i] such code existed it wouldn't be present in the open-source bit at all. They would tuck it away somewhere that wouldn't be altered by folk loading on custom rom images and wouldn't be detected by memory dumps etc.
What are you suggesting there Graham? Something which is hard coded into the phone at a level in the comms stack where it can decode a text and then do all the other stuff described? Would make the interfacing requirements for the bit which is open source kind of interesting and not only easily broken by a custom ROM, but also incredibly obvious for anybody looking at the source code because it would have to do things in a non-standard way which would be duplicated across multiple versions. Of course you are also widening your circle of secrecy to include all manufacturers of phones, some/most of whom notably aren't based in Western democracies.
In less words: you don't just plonk something which has those capabilities in isolation in the hardware of a phone, it would rely on lots of other stuff in the firmware.
Is there any part of your life you prefer to be kept private?
Plenty, which is, of course, why nothing that I would prefer others didn't know about never goes near social media, emails, texts, etc.
Not that difficult to do, really.
Been saying it for years (in a non tinfoil hat way) why do you think phones don't have shutters across camera lenses
If you mean the protective shutter that compact cameras have, then you could ask the same question about DSLR cameras; the simple fact is that the actual front lens element is protected by a thick sapphire crystal cover, in much the same way most people put a UV filter on a DSLR lens to protect the front element.
It's as simple as that, don't try to make something sneaky about it.
Can't say I'm shocked but it's to what level they can control. I really don't think they'd automatically listen to very call/data just those that they have suspicions of.
There is blurred lines when you factor in secret societies such as freemasons.
lots of nice paranoia on here. They are welcome to nose in on my life, they really wont be tuned in long. yawn. and this is true for most of us most of the time, so why worry?
//
But as I type I get paranoid, maybe other states have this tech? Maybe ISS might one day work out a way to hoax something that gets tons of people to die? like an internet 911.
//has the movie finished now? Get a grip.