5 ms·

> dangers to everyday people of personal information being stolen, accessed, leaked, etc This campaign is ripe for hijacking and inverting like the "you wouldn

by tomxor 5y ago

> dangers to everyday people of personal information being stolen, accessed, leaked, etc This campaign is ripe for hijacking and inverting like the "you wouldn't steal a car" campaign. "NO WHERE TO HIDE: (from criminals)... thought you were safe when writing innocuous private messages on Facebook? think again, criminals intercept the plaintext to commit identity fraud in your name. Thought you only had to worry about corporate surveillance of your location data? think again, now criminals can easily track you to break into your house while you are out. Thought your job was secure? think again, now criminals can build a comprehensive profile of your social and work activities to easily and effectively social engineer their way into your organisation, risking your livelihood." [edit] The other approach is to apply the same thinking to something non technical to more tangibly demonstrate how this is a bad idea. e.g: "NO WAY TO RUN: we are banning wheels, because they help paedophiles make for a quick getaway after abducting their target. In future we plan on banning legs too."

dijit 5y ago
The more fun thing to do is to manipulate messages in transport. There was a really fun game where you could join public wifi and change every image request response to be images of cats instead. (by changing the requesting URL and/or response). This idea was borne from the 'upside-down-ternet' which people ran on their Guest Networks. (https://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html https://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html) Would be fun to have a word replace running for "Thank You" to "Fuck You", it's not at all impossible to do.
- chewxy 5y ago
  Oh wow this brings back memories. More than a decade ago I lived in shared housing where each room has its own telephone port. The idea was every person was supposed to get their own internet. But after a few months of troubleshooting my housemates' internet issues I decided to open up my wifi to everyone else. I used Chillidog, a captive portal software that runs on ddwrt. I had a 3 hour continuous-use limit, after which weird stuff would happen to their images like being turned upsidedown or blurred. I used this very site to make it happen! Eventually, my housemates just contributed to my internet bill and dropped their own subscriptions. I got rid of the captive portal and went with something more traditional
IshKebab 5y ago
The idea that criminals will break into Facebook's servers and steal your messages is was less likely than the government using Facebook messages to catch child abusers, and that's already a little dubious. A better counter-argument is foreign governments (China, Russia, etc.) requiring data to be held on their soil and then using it to hunt and impression political enemies.
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  Without end-to-end encryption, one doesn't need to break into anyones servers. Thats sort of the point. Without encryption, you are weak at every packet, which can be intercepted anywhere between you and Facebooks servers.
  - owlbite 5y ago
    End-to-end encryption != no encryption. It's seems they're quite happy as long as authorized parties (adtech, intelligence agencies, etc) can man-in-the-middle the thing. Of course, tech companies never get breached and are exceptionally good at protecting our emails, passwords, credit reference data, and sensitive internal emails of political parties and campaigns, so there's clearly no risk whatsoever of your messages getting published on the internet in the future.
  - socksy 5y ago
    No end-to-end encryption does not mean no encryption. For example, Telegram does not use end-to-end encryption by default, however they encrypt all the messages with keys distributed across their servers. Anyone inspecting the packets won't be able to understand what's going on, but Telegram are able to read all your messages.
    - tomxor 5y ago
      This is a good point. Actually on closer inspection they don't even particularly care about E2E encryption, and here I was thinking this was snooper's charter v2: > We are not opposed to end-to-encryption in principle and fully support the importance of strong user privacy. Instead, our campaign is calling for social media companies to work with us to find a solution that protects privacy, without putting children at even greater risk. So we missed the point. This is a campaign to protect kids from shitty parenting, aa, I mean the social networks... so that they can be safely indoctrinated by social media without needing to encourage a responsible society. In all seriousness, the larger risk here then is not necessarily criminal activity from data leaks (though that's still a real possibility with a gov backdoor) - the greater risk is deeper government mass surveillance built directly into the most popular social media networks.
zimbatm 5y ago
NO WHERE TO HIDE: Bathrooms are used for illegal activities. Let's put cameras in each of them.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  No Where To Hide for people under police protection, eccentric people people with unconventional opinions, women or children.
- Borating 5y ago
  Snoopers Charter - Very public toilet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-RSravgi_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-RSravgi_Y
r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
NO WHERE TO HIDE: From the press... thought you were safe organising that lock down busting party at no. 10 over WhatsApp? Think again, journalists can intercept the plain text of your messages where you laugh at the deaths of proles and ask your old school mate Rupert to bring 10 bottles of bolly. Not sure if they've thought this through.
- addicted 5y ago
  Considering the UK press (and the MET) sat on that story for months, and it would probably never have gotten out if Cummings wasn't so pissed about the way he was treated, the UK pols have little to worry about from the press or the police.
- deadbunny 5y ago
  Given the emails were leaked to journalists e2e encryption wouldn't have helped there.
Symbiote 5y ago
The Open Rights Group is a step ahead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVhFrBsQXk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVhFrBsQXk
- stephen_g 5y ago
  Nice, that’s put together well. Worth giving it a watch and a like (because interactions like likes and comments tell the algorithm it’s worth recommending to others)
lorepieri 5y ago
You Wouldn't Download a Car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb7N-JtQWGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb7N-JtQWGI

by tomxor 5y ago

dijit 5y ago

The more fun thing to do is to manipulate messages in transport. There was a really fun game where you could join public wifi and change every image request response to be images of cats instead. (by changing the requesting URL and/or response). This idea was borne from the 'upside-down-ternet' which people ran on their Guest Networks. (https://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html https://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html) Would be fun to have a word replace running for "Thank You" to "Fuck You", it's not at all impossible to do.

chewxy 5y ago
Oh wow this brings back memories. More than a decade ago I lived in shared housing where each room has its own telephone port. The idea was every person was supposed to get their own internet. But after a few months of troubleshooting my housemates' internet issues I decided to open up my wifi to everyone else. I used Chillidog, a captive portal software that runs on ddwrt. I had a 3 hour continuous-use limit, after which weird stuff would happen to their images like being turned upsidedown or blurred. I used this very site to make it happen! Eventually, my housemates just contributed to my internet bill and dropped their own subscriptions. I got rid of the captive portal and went with something more traditional

IshKebab 5y ago

The idea that criminals will break into Facebook's servers and steal your messages is was less likely than the government using Facebook messages to catch child abusers, and that's already a little dubious. A better counter-argument is foreign governments (China, Russia, etc.) requiring data to be held on their soil and then using it to hunt and impression political enemies.

boffinAudio 5y ago
Without end-to-end encryption, one doesn't need to break into anyones servers. Thats sort of the point. Without encryption, you are weak at every packet, which can be intercepted anywhere between you and Facebooks servers.
- owlbite 5y ago
  End-to-end encryption != no encryption. It's seems they're quite happy as long as authorized parties (adtech, intelligence agencies, etc) can man-in-the-middle the thing. Of course, tech companies never get breached and are exceptionally good at protecting our emails, passwords, credit reference data, and sensitive internal emails of political parties and campaigns, so there's clearly no risk whatsoever of your messages getting published on the internet in the future.
- socksy 5y ago
  No end-to-end encryption does not mean no encryption. For example, Telegram does not use end-to-end encryption by default, however they encrypt all the messages with keys distributed across their servers. Anyone inspecting the packets won't be able to understand what's going on, but Telegram are able to read all your messages.
  - tomxor 5y ago
    This is a good point. Actually on closer inspection they don't even particularly care about E2E encryption, and here I was thinking this was snooper's charter v2: > We are not opposed to end-to-encryption in principle and fully support the importance of strong user privacy. Instead, our campaign is calling for social media companies to work with us to find a solution that protects privacy, without putting children at even greater risk. So we missed the point. This is a campaign to protect kids from shitty parenting, aa, I mean the social networks... so that they can be safely indoctrinated by social media without needing to encourage a responsible society. In all seriousness, the larger risk here then is not necessarily criminal activity from data leaks (though that's still a real possibility with a gov backdoor) - the greater risk is deeper government mass surveillance built directly into the most popular social media networks.

zimbatm 5y ago

NO WHERE TO HIDE: Bathrooms are used for illegal activities. Let's put cameras in each of them.

Kim_Bruning 5y ago
No Where To Hide for people under police protection, eccentric people people with unconventional opinions, women or children.
Borating 5y ago
Snoopers Charter - Very public toilet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-RSravgi_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-RSravgi_Y

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago

NO WHERE TO HIDE: From the press... thought you were safe organising that lock down busting party at no. 10 over WhatsApp? Think again, journalists can intercept the plain text of your messages where you laugh at the deaths of proles and ask your old school mate Rupert to bring 10 bottles of bolly. Not sure if they've thought this through.

addicted 5y ago
Considering the UK press (and the MET) sat on that story for months, and it would probably never have gotten out if Cummings wasn't so pissed about the way he was treated, the UK pols have little to worry about from the press or the police.
deadbunny 5y ago
Given the emails were leaked to journalists e2e encryption wouldn't have helped there.

Symbiote 5y ago

The Open Rights Group is a step ahead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVhFrBsQXk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVhFrBsQXk

stephen_g 5y ago
Nice, that’s put together well. Worth giving it a watch and a like (because interactions like likes and comments tell the algorithm it’s worth recommending to others)

lorepieri 5y ago

You Wouldn't Download a Car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb7N-JtQWGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb7N-JtQWGI