3 ms·

> The protagonists of state-sanctioned surveillance are cybersecurity experts hacking into smart phones’ operating systems from a suburban office park, Microsof

> The protagonists of state-sanctioned surveillance are cybersecurity experts hacking into smart phones’ operating systems from a suburban office park, Microsoft engineers refining a biometric camera’s algorithm from their home office, and plain-clothes soldiers parsing through geolocation data for someone else to carry out a drone strike. I think it's more banal than that - Google, M$, Facebook etc probably allow direct access to whatever agencies, no tinkering required. Let's not forget Google was funded by inqtel, and Facebook started the same day Darpa's Lifelog ended.

fsflover 4y ago
Not sure why it's downvoted. They are all a part of PRISM, according to Snowden revelation. And they collect too much data.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
You are being downvoted, but I will give an example that is not controversial, is ( or at least should be ) openly known and currently in operation. In Canada, which does have much stronger privacy protections than US, RMCP can get information directly from Fintrac under the umbrella of partnership. While there is no direct evidence that Google et al, allows for the type of access you describe, I find it less and less unlikely these days.
- yazzku 4y ago
  What do you mean there is no evidence? https://snowdentheplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2.jpg https://snowdentheplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2.jpg
naithan 4y ago
Yeah, I rely on a Chromebook for most of what I do, and I sometimes wonder if US spy agencies have backdoor access to Google servers or even their mobile operating systems.
- yazzku 4y ago
  Why do you need to wonder at this point? It's obvious that they do, we know that much from the Snowden leaks.
  - naithan 4y ago
    I was specifically referring to the extent of hidden collusion between US tech companies and US security establishment and military. There's passive collusion which is turning a blind eye, an example of which might be this: https://www.wired.com/2013/10/nsa-hacked-yahoo-google-cables/ https://www.wired.com/2013/10/nsa-hacked-yahoo-google-cables... It seems implausible that nobody in these companies, especially in their information security departments, had known or at least suspected that such activities were taking place before the Snowden leaks. That said, overt collusion with the US government behind the scenes is a different matter. It's been public knowledge for at least a decade that they can access the data of non-US citizens stored on the cloud servers of US tech companies, but in Google's case specifically, I couldn't find any credible claim online that US intelligence has secret backdoors on Android or Chrome OS devices that grant access to locally stored data. Given that Android and Chrome OS are opensource, I don't see this as a likely possibility. On the other hand, the security of Google software depends on the trustworthiness of Google itself and the integrity of its OTA software updates. It's theoretically possible that companies like Google may have secret backroom deals with the NSA that enable the latter to push malicious code onto the devices of targeted individuals and groups via OTA updates, but I don't think Google is likely to have agreed to such a flagrant violation of consumer trust as to jeopardize their entire business model.
paganel 4y ago
WhatsApp's acquisition by FB (which seemed over-priced at the time, mind you) involved a boutique investment bank called Allen & Company, which acted as an advisor for FB [1]. That bank had as a managing director back in 2008 a certain George Tenet [2], a former director of the CIA. From that same wiki section, and related to the topic at hand: > Tenet is also on the boards of directors of L-1 Identity Solutions, a biometric identification software manufacturer. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579397112054095536 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579397... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Later_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Later_life
joe_the_user 4y ago
It seems very likely that surveillance involves both talking to Facebook and hacking on one's own these days. If a local police department (or an obscure agency or a contractor) can successfully hack someone's phone, such action has the advantage that neither the Feds nor Facebook or whoever has to know about it. It's reasonable to say that surveillance channels are power and by that token, everyone wants a channel that's as much under their sole control as possible. And no one wants another Snowden, even if Snowden probably didn't change things fundamentally, he gave the NSA a big black eye and I'd suspect image is important to these agencies as well.
gnopgnip 4y ago
The stored communications act prohibits companies from sharing email and similar messages without a warrant, and prohibits sharing information from remote computing services without a subpoena. This is not to say that it never happens that information is shared illegally, but the US is one of very few countries where illegally collected evidence is inadmissible, and so is "fruit of the poisonous tree", any other evidence collected based on this illegal evidence.
- uoaei 4y ago
  It is possible there are secret dicta that supercede legislation, and anyway, laws are only as good as their enforcement, so there are many ways for the government to act as if that law doesn't exist and face zero pushback or repercussions. It is not in your best interest to assume good faith on the part of potentially bad actors.
- yazzku 4y ago
  Those laws are irrelevant, see the Snowden leaks. NSA and other agencies operate in the shadows and/or directly fund the companies mentioned above.

fsflover 4y ago

Not sure why it's downvoted. They are all a part of PRISM, according to Snowden revelation. And they collect too much data.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

You are being downvoted, but I will give an example that is not controversial, is ( or at least should be ) openly known and currently in operation. In Canada, which does have much stronger privacy protections than US, RMCP can get information directly from Fintrac under the umbrella of partnership. While there is no direct evidence that Google et al, allows for the type of access you describe, I find it less and less unlikely these days.

yazzku 4y ago
What do you mean there is no evidence? https://snowdentheplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2.jpg https://snowdentheplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2.jpg

naithan 4y ago

Yeah, I rely on a Chromebook for most of what I do, and I sometimes wonder if US spy agencies have backdoor access to Google servers or even their mobile operating systems.

yazzku 4y ago
Why do you need to wonder at this point? It's obvious that they do, we know that much from the Snowden leaks.
- naithan 4y ago
  I was specifically referring to the extent of hidden collusion between US tech companies and US security establishment and military. There's passive collusion which is turning a blind eye, an example of which might be this: https://www.wired.com/2013/10/nsa-hacked-yahoo-google-cables/ https://www.wired.com/2013/10/nsa-hacked-yahoo-google-cables... It seems implausible that nobody in these companies, especially in their information security departments, had known or at least suspected that such activities were taking place before the Snowden leaks. That said, overt collusion with the US government behind the scenes is a different matter. It's been public knowledge for at least a decade that they can access the data of non-US citizens stored on the cloud servers of US tech companies, but in Google's case specifically, I couldn't find any credible claim online that US intelligence has secret backdoors on Android or Chrome OS devices that grant access to locally stored data. Given that Android and Chrome OS are opensource, I don't see this as a likely possibility. On the other hand, the security of Google software depends on the trustworthiness of Google itself and the integrity of its OTA software updates. It's theoretically possible that companies like Google may have secret backroom deals with the NSA that enable the latter to push malicious code onto the devices of targeted individuals and groups via OTA updates, but I don't think Google is likely to have agreed to such a flagrant violation of consumer trust as to jeopardize their entire business model.

paganel 4y ago

WhatsApp's acquisition by FB (which seemed over-priced at the time, mind you) involved a boutique investment bank called Allen & Company, which acted as an advisor for FB [1]. That bank had as a managing director back in 2008 a certain George Tenet [2], a former director of the CIA. From that same wiki section, and related to the topic at hand: > Tenet is also on the boards of directors of L-1 Identity Solutions, a biometric identification software manufacturer. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579397112054095536 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579397... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Later_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet#Later_life

joe_the_user 4y ago

It seems very likely that surveillance involves both talking to Facebook and hacking on one's own these days. If a local police department (or an obscure agency or a contractor) can successfully hack someone's phone, such action has the advantage that neither the Feds nor Facebook or whoever has to know about it. It's reasonable to say that surveillance channels are power and by that token, everyone wants a channel that's as much under their sole control as possible. And no one wants another Snowden, even if Snowden probably didn't change things fundamentally, he gave the NSA a big black eye and I'd suspect image is important to these agencies as well.

gnopgnip 4y ago

The stored communications act prohibits companies from sharing email and similar messages without a warrant, and prohibits sharing information from remote computing services without a subpoena. This is not to say that it never happens that information is shared illegally, but the US is one of very few countries where illegally collected evidence is inadmissible, and so is "fruit of the poisonous tree", any other evidence collected based on this illegal evidence.

uoaei 4y ago
It is possible there are secret dicta that supercede legislation, and anyway, laws are only as good as their enforcement, so there are many ways for the government to act as if that law doesn't exist and face zero pushback or repercussions. It is not in your best interest to assume good faith on the part of potentially bad actors.
yazzku 4y ago
Those laws are irrelevant, see the Snowden leaks. NSA and other agencies operate in the shadows and/or directly fund the companies mentioned above.