4 ms·
sure! Oh except for the fact that i linked an articule documenting skype specifically catering to NSA surveillance programs, and the NSA having a history of get
by gr3yh47 10y ago
sure! Oh except for the fact that i linked an articule documenting skype specifically catering to NSA surveillance programs, and the NSA having a history of getting software to introduce vulnerabilities they can exploit...
but hey, why not throw out the facts to pile on?
- tptacek 10y agoIt's the facts that are the problem with your weird theory: this doesn't even make sense as an NSA backdoor. It only works if they've already backdoored your computer.
- gr3yh47 10y agoDoes any NSA surveillance vulnerability stand up to logical scrutiny? No, because introducing security vulnerabilities to keep us secure is inherently illogical.
- tptacek 10y agoIf this comment made sense to someone else who could rephrase it for me, I'd be grateful.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- angry_octet 10y agoI think he means 'if nsa were logical actors, they would patch vulnerabilities, not leave them to be exploited by anyone, and they would use NSLs/collaborators/special NSA Voodoo to get their data'. This idea is built on the assumption that (1) they think their defensive role is as vital as their offensive one, (2) there is plenty of special NSA voodoo to go round. Which is false. In particular, it is better that a hack come from a vendor vuln that anybody could find than from crypto wizardry (e.g. Logjam or signed drivers with md5 collisions).
- tedunangst 10y agoThe NSA did an illogical thing, therefore everything they do is illogical. It is illogical to create a backdoor that requires already owning the machine, therefore the NSA did exactly that.
- curried_haskell 10y agoThis is also the biggest fallacy in economic, and even political theory. The assumption of rational actors.