5 ms·

If you work for a useful target yes they probably have hacked you. They've certainly hacked google in the past for example - see below. These agencies are lawle

If you work for a useful target yes they probably have hacked you. They've certainly hacked google in the past for example - see below. These agencies are lawless and motivated. I imagine knowing where targets stay/travel in advance could be very useful. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/06/google-nsa-gchq-spying-judicial-process https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/...

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
>These agencies are lawless Citation needed
- opnitro 6y ago
  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Con...]
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    This doesn’t relate to the topic in question.
    - opnitro 6y ago
      I was asked for an example of the organization being lawless, I gave a concrete example of the organization failing the most basic of accountability measures: Being asked under oath about their processes. The leader of the organization lied. I think that's a decent indictment of the organization.
- grey-area 6y ago
  Here you go: Stellar Wind, Tempora, Prism. https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-pr... This is a particularly interesting profile of Binney, who worked on stellar wind. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/13/uk-mass-surveillance-ruled-illegal/#44ae35b16329 https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/13/uk-ma... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23123964 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23123964 Of course they claimed after being exposed that these programs are legal, but I think lawless is apt as these agencies don't consider the law as a boundary they need to respect. O tempora, o mores
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    Excellent long form piece that covers several of these topics as well. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sharer https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sha...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    Prism requires a warrant for US targets. Sounds far from lawless to me.
- remus 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
There has never been a documented case through leaks or otherwise that they do domestic hacking, including in all the links you are providing.
- grey-area 6y ago
  What is domestic and what is not? Is a company with assets abroad domestic or fair game abroad? You are aware these agencies share most data across borders aren't you? Tempora is domestic hacking, Stellar Wind is domestic hacking (sweeping up data from all Americans), and these agencies share data extensively, so domestic vs foreign has very little meaning to them at least.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    No, interception and wiretapping (especially with permission of the service provider) are not the same thing as hacking a company to maintain persistent access and surreptitiously using their assets to exfiltrate data. These are very different things and the distinction matters. I’m familiar with what kinds of things they do, and I don’t agree that they should be doing a lot of what they do. It’s just that rooting american assets isn’t one of those. Also, you have the wrong country for Tempora.
    - grey-area 6y ago
      The agencies extensively share data and routinely break domestic laws. They even use sharing as a way of getting around domestic restrictions.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Like, why go through the effort to hack domestic companies when you can just subpoena them?
  - chillingeffect 6y ago
    A reasonable question. There are many answers. My first one would be for leverage. E.g. To solve a crime, they want information from someone who is not under formal investigation. That someone may not voluntarily cooperate, so they use information for leverage. E.g. threaten to leak information about a pending business deal to others in the transaction. It's not very effective for Joe Sixpack, but it is for organized crime of all kinds.
class4behavior 6y ago
>They've certainly hacked google in the past for example - see below. You've referenced proof they couldn't hack Google and instead they had to use alternative measures. >Google is understood to be working on "forward encryption" for its private network so that communications even over its private leased lines would be unintelligible to anyone without the "keys" to decrypt it. That's basically the reason it was even possible. Such surveillance is not a hack.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

>These agencies are lawless Citation needed

opnitro 6y ago
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#Testimony_to_Con...]
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  This doesn’t relate to the topic in question.
  - opnitro 6y ago
    I was asked for an example of the organization being lawless, I gave a concrete example of the organization failing the most basic of accountability measures: Being asked under oath about their processes. The leader of the organization lied. I think that's a decent indictment of the organization.
grey-area 6y ago
Here you go: Stellar Wind, Tempora, Prism. https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-pr... This is a particularly interesting profile of Binney, who worked on stellar wind. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/13/uk-mass-surveillance-ruled-illegal/#44ae35b16329 https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/13/uk-ma... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23123964 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23123964 Of course they claimed after being exposed that these programs are legal, but I think lawless is apt as these agencies don't consider the law as a boundary they need to respect. O tempora, o mores
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  Excellent long form piece that covers several of these topics as well. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sharer https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/23/the-secret-sha...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  Prism requires a warrant for US targets. Sounds far from lawless to me.
remus 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

There has never been a documented case through leaks or otherwise that they do domestic hacking, including in all the links you are providing.

grey-area 6y ago
What is domestic and what is not? Is a company with assets abroad domestic or fair game abroad? You are aware these agencies share most data across borders aren't you? Tempora is domestic hacking, Stellar Wind is domestic hacking (sweeping up data from all Americans), and these agencies share data extensively, so domestic vs foreign has very little meaning to them at least.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  No, interception and wiretapping (especially with permission of the service provider) are not the same thing as hacking a company to maintain persistent access and surreptitiously using their assets to exfiltrate data. These are very different things and the distinction matters. I’m familiar with what kinds of things they do, and I don’t agree that they should be doing a lot of what they do. It’s just that rooting american assets isn’t one of those. Also, you have the wrong country for Tempora.
  - grey-area 6y ago
    The agencies extensively share data and routinely break domestic laws. They even use sharing as a way of getting around domestic restrictions.
blaser-waffle 6y ago
Like, why go through the effort to hack domestic companies when you can just subpoena them?
- chillingeffect 6y ago
  A reasonable question. There are many answers. My first one would be for leverage. E.g. To solve a crime, they want information from someone who is not under formal investigation. That someone may not voluntarily cooperate, so they use information for leverage. E.g. threaten to leak information about a pending business deal to others in the transaction. It's not very effective for Joe Sixpack, but it is for organized crime of all kinds.

class4behavior 6y ago

>They've certainly hacked google in the past for example - see below. You've referenced proof they couldn't hack Google and instead they had to use alternative measures. >Google is understood to be working on "forward encryption" for its private network so that communications even over its private leased lines would be unintelligible to anyone without the "keys" to decrypt it. That's basically the reason it was even possible. Such surveillance is not a hack.