16 ms·
I know this is from October, but it warrants re-reading now. Today, Yahoo announced a hack of 1B accounts. They say they don't know who it is, but we can concl
by peterkelly 10y ago
I know this is from October, but it warrants re-reading now.
Today, Yahoo announced a hack of 1B accounts. They say they don't know who it is, but we can conclude it's not the US government because Yahoo is willing and legally able to publicly disclose it.
Previously, Yahoo willingly assisted an attacker in compromising 1B accounts. In this case, they did not disclose the attack publicly, or even to their own chief information security officer, because in that instance the attacker was the US government itself.
US intelligence activities are actively harmful to American commercial interests because they destroy trust, particularly from customers elsewhere in the world.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-nsa-ordered-yahoo-to-build-secret-e-mail-search-tool/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-...
- eganist 10y ago> we can conclude it's not the US government because Yahoo is willing and legally able to publicly disclose it. This implies a potentially fatal assumption that IC agencies perform clandestine activities with prior notice to mission targets.
- peterkelly 10y agoThat's a very good point actually. Though in this case they say the tip-off came from a law enforcement agency (I assume they mean an American one). It's possible however that agency doesn't realise it's a clandestine operation by another US agency. Or they do, but now the operation is complete (this was three years ago) and they want a way of informing yahoo about the breach without admitting who was behind it in the first place.
- normaljoe 10y agoIt's not US. It's another state actor. Can't say more.
- dmix 10y agoPRISM (Yahoo joined 2nd in 2008 after Microsoft in 2007) would basically defeat the purpose of doing this without permission... Did Yahoo Mail even use HTTPS? In that case a FISA warrant would just be an extra level of assurance that they got everything from that person's inbox (plus inboxes of 3 hops of everyone they ever emailed). Otherwise they were just an XKeyscore query, probably filtered by US geodata, away from getting whatever email they wanted (plus unlimited hops).
- djsumdog 10y agoI feel like everyone has forgotten about PRISM. All the big companies denied they participated in PRISM. Is it real, and if so, why have Americans been so complacent about its existence?
- jonnybgood 10y agoWhat do you think PRISM is?
- hash-set 10y agoAmericans have the attention span of a newt, that's why.
- willstrafach 10y agoThis is not a mystery. PRISM == use of secret court orders to collect information from companies regarding certain targets. Can you clarify what you think it is and how it is relevant here?
- lern_too_spel 10y agoYour understanding of PRISM is entirely wrong. It processes emails these companies send to the FBI for specific accounts that the government has a court order for, not all the emails that these companies handle.
- dmix 10y ago
- bvinc 10y ago> They say they don't know who it is, but we can conclude it's not the US government because Yahoo is willing and legally able to publicly disclose it. I would assume, like most announcements, the reason that it's being announced is because the data is available out there and been seen in the wild.
- uiri 10y agoGiven its government's track record, I would think that data centers in the US should be walled off in much the same way as data centers in China. It is frankly surprising that American companies are blind to their own government's track record for indiscriminately spying on its citizens and people around the world.
- avdempsey 10y agoYou mean American companies like Apple? Whether you trust them or not they've certainly brought it up. Though they might not label the spying indiscriminate; maybe still 'criminate. Or are Chinese companies doing some interesting walling-off?
- wallace_f 10y ago> US intelligence activities are actively harmful to American commercial interests because they destroy trust, particularly from customers elsewhere in the world. We already stand as the most powerful country on earth. It's a great testament to ineptitude in government that this is the current reality.
- ralfn 10y agoYes. And dangerous in the long term because the US wont be the most powerfull country forever. High trees catch a lot of wind. People are more likely to hate the US. When the tides change and the power inbalance goes away the hate and mistrust will still be there. But maybe society is wiser this time around.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago>> because the US wont be the most powerfull country forever I honestly find this hard to believe because: - When there is conflict in the world, countries always come to the US first for military intervention - When there is a serious disaster of some kind, countries always expect us to send billions in aid (both militarily and financially) to help them - When a country is trying to obtain nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, they come to us to stop them Essentially it comes down to everybody comes to the US first for everything. When that starts to change, maybe I would entertain the fact that we won't be the most powerful country. When so many countries and millions of people rely on us for so many things, our position as being a global leader won't change in the near future. And quite honestly, I know there's large chunks of our population that would welcome some other countries stepping up and taking the lead instead of the US. It would certainly save us thousands of military personnel that have been lost over our involvement in questionable conflicts in the Middle East.
- iamdave 10y agoAren't you assuming the implied change of power mentioned in the parent comment will come at the hands of a rational actor/state? That seems fraught with hindsight, no?
- webmaven 10y ago> we can conclude it's not the US government because Yahoo is willing and legally able to publicly disclose it. That is the way to bet, but it is also possible (though not very likely) that Yahoo disclosed this publicly before the relevant USG agency could get an NSL out.
- ethbro 10y agoThat doesn't make much sense though. If they could get an NSL for this with a gag order after the fact, then even a rubber stamp judge would no doubt be curious why they didn't get one before and notify Yahoo.
- atmosx 10y ago> US intelligence activities are actively harmful to American commercial interests because they destroy trust, particularly from customers elsewhere in the world. I think, they actively harm US corporations because they fundamentally destroy trust of US citizens too.
- travmatt 10y agoYea but they're still going to buy the products. Foreigners, especially foreign corporations, are the portion of the market whose buying decision is most sensitive towards these issues.
- Bartweiss 10y agoOn one hand, I actually do see domestic harms. People are a bit less inclined to use Yahoo, and a bit more inclined to use Apple, because of their different levels of pushback. I agree, though, that this is a much smaller issue than the loss of foreign sales. Surveillance won't kill US iPhone usage, but it could probably destroy Cisco's foreign markets.