4 ms·

None of this should be a surprise. We should expect that any device with Internet access can be hacked by someone, regardless of their intentions. If it isn't t

None of this should be a surprise. We should expect that any device with Internet access can be hacked by someone, regardless of their intentions. If it isn't the NSA it's Chinese "patriot hackers" or Russian cyber-criminals operating with the consent of their governments. Or many others. Instead of seeing this security state as a binary, we should always consider two questions: 1: How much do we value our privacy and security versus the needs of society (in the case of backdoors and so on), and, 2: How much do we trust the people whose business is having the ability to break into our phones? I don't like how invasive our security agencies are but if they end up preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks I can't say what they do is wrong. At the end of the day, I want the people defending me to be more powerful than the people attacking me, but I don't want my defenders to use their same tools against me.

DanBC 11y ago
I agree with your post but you left out "How much should we trust companies who are intent on slurping as much data as possible, storing it insecurely, with the main purpose of selling it". NSA's / GCHQ's work is made easier by companies who ask for too much data, and who don't know how to send that data securely or keep it secure on their servers.
Zigurd 11y ago
It's true that everyone wants to hack your device.The difference is that NSA has set the tone: Make the technology providers under your influence include exploitable flaws and back doors. PCs are fully mature products and 99% of customers don't need performance breakthroughs. That means it should be possible to make open hardware and open software that make exploits much harder than they are today. Phones are getting there. It's time to make hardware and software that optimize for verifiable security.
- bb101 11y ago
  When Blackberry 10 handsets boot up, they spend a few seconds verifying the security of the software. Since the handsets are practically impossible to root, I'm guessing any alterations would be flagged up.
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
    In 2011, the UK had a few days of rioting and looting where kids were supposedly using Blackberry's private pseudo anon messenger system BBM to advertise flash mobs of looting. UK authorities complained BBM's encryption was to blame for the looting. Within a few days afterwards, the BBM service experienced some rare downtime, during which presumably, accommodations were made to cater to accessibility of the encrypted messages for the UK gov. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470761/mobile-apps/2011-london-riots-cause-blackberry-bbm-rethink.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470761/mobile-apps/201...
kaonashi 11y ago
> I don't like how invasive our security agencies are but if they end up preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks I can't say what they do is wrong. What if they're just using the information to further their own personal power and fortune and forestall any potential rivals?
- tripzilch 11y ago
  Depends. If it's the Chinese or the Russians then it's bad. And you never hear about them being in the business of preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks. If it's the NSA then it's either hype, speculations without any real evidence, right up until there is, and then it's "not surprising".
PavlovsCat 11y ago
> I don't like how invasive our security agencies are but if they end up preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks I can't say what they do is wrong. That invasiveness IS a major crime in itself, of mindboggling proportions even. Besides, the operative word here is "if". > At the end of the day, I want the people defending me to be more powerful than the people attacking me, but I don't want my defenders to use their same tools against me. Not gonna happen. > "If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror." -- Hannah Arendt
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

DanBC 11y ago

I agree with your post but you left out "How much should we trust companies who are intent on slurping as much data as possible, storing it insecurely, with the main purpose of selling it". NSA's / GCHQ's work is made easier by companies who ask for too much data, and who don't know how to send that data securely or keep it secure on their servers.

Zigurd 11y ago

It's true that everyone wants to hack your device.The difference is that NSA has set the tone: Make the technology providers under your influence include exploitable flaws and back doors. PCs are fully mature products and 99% of customers don't need performance breakthroughs. That means it should be possible to make open hardware and open software that make exploits much harder than they are today. Phones are getting there. It's time to make hardware and software that optimize for verifiable security.

bb101 11y ago
When Blackberry 10 handsets boot up, they spend a few seconds verifying the security of the software. Since the handsets are practically impossible to root, I'm guessing any alterations would be flagged up.
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  In 2011, the UK had a few days of rioting and looting where kids were supposedly using Blackberry's private pseudo anon messenger system BBM to advertise flash mobs of looting. UK authorities complained BBM's encryption was to blame for the looting. Within a few days afterwards, the BBM service experienced some rare downtime, during which presumably, accommodations were made to cater to accessibility of the encrypted messages for the UK gov. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470761/mobile-apps/2011-london-riots-cause-blackberry-bbm-rethink.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470761/mobile-apps/201...

kaonashi 11y ago

> I don't like how invasive our security agencies are but if they end up preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks I can't say what they do is wrong. What if they're just using the information to further their own personal power and fortune and forestall any potential rivals?

tripzilch 11y ago
Depends. If it's the Chinese or the Russians then it's bad. And you never hear about them being in the business of preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks. If it's the NSA then it's either hype, speculations without any real evidence, right up until there is, and then it's "not surprising".

PavlovsCat 11y ago

> I don't like how invasive our security agencies are but if they end up preventing major crimes or terrorist attacks I can't say what they do is wrong. That invasiveness IS a major crime in itself, of mindboggling proportions even. Besides, the operative word here is "if". > At the end of the day, I want the people defending me to be more powerful than the people attacking me, but I don't want my defenders to use their same tools against me. Not gonna happen. > "If the totalitarian conqueror conducts himself everywhere as though he were at home, by the same token he must treat his own population as though he were a foreign conqueror." -- Hannah Arendt

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]