4 ms·

I know this headline generates traffic by being about the iPhone, but this is a minor point. The big message from Jacob's talk and the original articles in Der

by JunkDNA 13y ago

I know this headline generates traffic by being about the iPhone, but this is a minor point. The big message from Jacob's talk and the original articles in Der Spiegel is that the NSA can intercept anything. Period. Full stop. People have suspected such far reaching capabilities for some time. This talk and the articles demonstrate that it exists. I'm personally a little uncomfortable with this kind of disclosure. On one hand, the NSA exists for the express purpose of spying. That is their job. You can not like that the NSA is a spy organization and we can debate whether we should conduct spy operations as a society, but I'm not sure what exposing their methods in this level of detail does for advancing that debate. Did people expect them to be a spy organization that was incompetent? A group that makes crappy and obvious listening devices stamped with "Designed by the NSA in Maryland"? On the other hand, the cases of potential abuses and dragnet surveillance capturing everything indiscriminately are extremely worrying. I don't know how a free society can do all this spying in support of legitimate foreign policy goals and at the same time not grow into an out of control, unaccountable organization ripe for abuse.

enkephalin 13y ago
> Did people expect them to be a spy organization that was incompetent? i'm guessing most people thought that spying of US agencies was an activity that was carried out abroad, and aimed at real threats.
- JunkDNA 13y ago
  Indeed. But nothing in these slides suggests that this stuff wasn't used that way. In contrast to PRISM a lot of the techniques Jacob presented seem like they would only be useful for targeted work. The crucial question of where those targets are located and how many there actually are is left open. That is what makes me uncomfortable about this sort of presentation. I'm concerned that it does real harm to legitimate intelligence programs by conflating them with unrelated mass internet surveillance programs.
  - enkephalin 13y ago
    > But nothing in these slides suggests that this stuff wasn't used that way. that's true of course. but i'm afraid that the revelations of the past months have almost turned "jumping to conclusions" into a legitimate response to this kind of information.
- wisty 13y ago
  When terrorism in the big concern, droid strikes are used against real threats. General espionage is used to figure out what the real threats are. I guess they'd still be hoovering up everything they could, just in case, if it weren't for the threat of terrorism. Public opinion is strategically important (if a foreign power starts a war, how will their people react?), but it wouldn't be so important.
  - enkephalin 13y ago
    true, but as we've come to see, a big proportion of the spying efforts of the NSA are being directed towards information gathering, for various other reasons than threat assessment. e.g. i don't think many people would have believed the NSA to be spying on US allies, or being involved in industrial espionage.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    > droid strikes Next on the NSA revelations list: A backdoor software "implant" capable of exploiting holes in everything from Froyo to KitKat, and which subverts the device's power management circuitry, such that a remote command can short-circuit and overheat the battery. Results, and especially the likelihood of explosion, depend strongly on battery capacity and charge state, but in-house testing suggests probability of fire should be ca. 95%+ across all device models susceptible to the implant. (Speaking of which: "Implant", I like that choice of term, it's got just the cyberpunk flavor today's world needs.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Touche 13y ago
> I know this headline generates traffic by being about the iPhone, but this is a minor point. I disagree, the article implies that Apple might (probably?) is helping them with their spying. This is not a minor point for me. I think it's very important to expose which tech companies are betraying their customers, and conversely which are not.
- sigzero 13y ago
  No, the article didn't imply that. "Here’s a problem: I don’t really believe that Apple didn’t help them." That is a bullshit statement. It is pure speculation without a SHRED of facts to back it up.
  - Touche 13y ago
    > No, the article didn't imply that. There's a whole paragraph about that. You quoted part of it. It's not a minor point of the article. There's no smoking gun but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    There are many shades of gray in manufacturers helping the NSA to hack their products: from outright creating back doors, to using gimpy RNGs, to revealing bugs to the NSA before otherwise disclosing them, to using peripherals with back doors. Deniability and cover stories are part and parcel with such work. It is naive to claim it simply isn't happening.
- JunkDNA 13y ago
  Jacob made this assertion in his talk but presented no evidence. He explicitly said he wanted to call out the companies because they should be held accountable if they were complicit in this. But no evidence was presented that any of the hardware companies were coordinating with the NSA. Given that jail breaking continues to exist, it is entirely possible that Apple and other companies are victims of security exploits identified by the NSA. That being said, it would be good to get some companies on record on this.
salient 13y ago
First off, I don't think anyone except "tinfoil hats" really imagined the scale of NSA spying. Who really thought the NSA would try to subvert the cryptographic standards they pretend to create to "secure systems"? Who really thought they'd go to US service and hardware companies and ask them to implement backdoors for them? Also, there's a big difference between letting NSA protect US against Real Threats - real national security people-are-going-to-die threats, and spying not just on every single citizen on the planet (which includes corporate espionage), but on American citizens and companies, too. Just like everyone has a little "evil" in them, without all of us being Hitler, the NSA can do a little bit of spying on important targets, without going 10/10 on the scale of evil spying. So no, I really don't think "this is their job" or that "everyone knew they were doing this". I think the vast majority of people thought NSA would be reasonable with their spying. I also hate it when people say, "didn't you see when they passed the Patriot Act? You should've expected this." Perhaps, but if you go back to when they passed it, they did it in literally hours, and if you watch Bush speak about it [1], he makes it sound as if they are only going to use it to spy on the terrorists' communications - not everyone's. Going by how fast they passed the bill, and how few details were offered, you can't really blame most people for "not knowing". Heck, it was even called the "anti-terrorism bill" on TV, so I don't think people imagined that meant all of their communications are going to be swept up, because they were now thinking everyone is a potential terrorist (which is what "collecting it all" means) until proven otherwise by their systems. [1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRcfTakhFo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRcfTakhFo
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  "Going by how fast they passed the bill, and how few details were offered, you can't really blame most people for "not knowing"." True, but perhaps someday we can learn to not advocate the passage of bills in such a short amount of time that representatives themselves do not have a chance to read or digest them, much less have debate about the specific contents. I say perhaps because I suspect we'll continue to see much more of this until there's some sort of mechanical change requiring a X day waiting period on any legislation introduced, and/or something requiring reps to sign a document with real penalties for perjury that they've read the damn things before voting on them.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
The absolute, fundamental founding principle of the US constitution is the limitation of powers of the government. Such power is limited by splitting it three ways and having separate institutions keeping each other in check, through the will of the people via voting electing representatives and the president, and through the very strong protections of individual liberty embodied in the bill of rights. And yet today we find ourselves in a situation where bit by bit those limitations have been eroded so severely that they might as well not exist. We have organizations, such as the NSA, who have multi-billion dollar budgets with limited oversight and little public transparency. Who similarly operate with limited oversight in conditions of near utter secrecy. Who, through those conditions, have essentially unfettered ability to undertake any conceivable surveillance effort imaginable and much else besides. It is simply untenable to have so many people with such power and no accountability and also maintain democratic institutions and preserve individual liberty. We should be thankful that, so far as I am aware, there has not been an individual with an excess of competence and ambition combined with a scarcity of morals or we would be in a much worse place today. But realistically it is only a matter of time before this power falls into the wrong hands. We have already been dangerously close in relatively recent history, such as with J. Edgar Hoover, we should not be courting fate again. It would not be an exaggeration to say that how we handle this crisis will greatly affect the near-future history of the United States and significantly affect the future of all mankind in the 21st century and beyond. This is potentially a defining moment for this generation.
pasbesoin 13y ago
In a severe but perhaps useful reduction, look at what this and other "secretive" activity appears in conjunction with. Arguments might thereupon be promoted, that it is also "in support of". Increasing income disparity. Exposure to versus shelter from the legal system and justice -- as stated in the U.S. in published, public laws and mounted through public, accountable law enforcement activities. Freedom of movement, or constraint of same (e.g. the secret, unaudit-able, un-appealable, unaccountable no-fly list). Etc. I'd argue that, in the large, a democratic society is based upon the willing participation of its members. Who share in responsibility for its security. What is being created seems already to be, and regardless of ones opinion of current circumstances, capable of being made into and becoming, rather something else. In other words, "equality before the law" already seems to be going out the window. (Well, that has always been somewhat of a myth, but, in many opinions, it seems to be getting worse.) Our democratic societies deserve and need to know about this, for the sake of remaining democratic. And it's time to pull out a potent word in description of what has been and is going on: Hypocrisy. Our leaders actions and their words -- platitudes -- do not align. And it's time for us to think hard about whether our own do.

by JunkDNA 13y ago

enkephalin 13y ago

> Did people expect them to be a spy organization that was incompetent? i'm guessing most people thought that spying of US agencies was an activity that was carried out abroad, and aimed at real threats.

JunkDNA 13y ago
Indeed. But nothing in these slides suggests that this stuff wasn't used that way. In contrast to PRISM a lot of the techniques Jacob presented seem like they would only be useful for targeted work. The crucial question of where those targets are located and how many there actually are is left open. That is what makes me uncomfortable about this sort of presentation. I'm concerned that it does real harm to legitimate intelligence programs by conflating them with unrelated mass internet surveillance programs.
- enkephalin 13y ago
  > But nothing in these slides suggests that this stuff wasn't used that way. that's true of course. but i'm afraid that the revelations of the past months have almost turned "jumping to conclusions" into a legitimate response to this kind of information.
wisty 13y ago
When terrorism in the big concern, droid strikes are used against real threats. General espionage is used to figure out what the real threats are. I guess they'd still be hoovering up everything they could, just in case, if it weren't for the threat of terrorism. Public opinion is strategically important (if a foreign power starts a war, how will their people react?), but it wouldn't be so important.
- enkephalin 13y ago
  true, but as we've come to see, a big proportion of the spying efforts of the NSA are being directed towards information gathering, for various other reasons than threat assessment. e.g. i don't think many people would have believed the NSA to be spying on US allies, or being involved in industrial espionage.
- aaronem 13y ago
  > droid strikes Next on the NSA revelations list: A backdoor software "implant" capable of exploiting holes in everything from Froyo to KitKat, and which subverts the device's power management circuitry, such that a remote command can short-circuit and overheat the battery. Results, and especially the likelihood of explosion, depend strongly on battery capacity and charge state, but in-house testing suggests probability of fire should be ca. 95%+ across all device models susceptible to the implant. (Speaking of which: "Implant", I like that choice of term, it's got just the cyberpunk flavor today's world needs.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Touche 13y ago

> I know this headline generates traffic by being about the iPhone, but this is a minor point. I disagree, the article implies that Apple might (probably?) is helping them with their spying. This is not a minor point for me. I think it's very important to expose which tech companies are betraying their customers, and conversely which are not.

sigzero 13y ago
No, the article didn't imply that. "Here’s a problem: I don’t really believe that Apple didn’t help them." That is a bullshit statement. It is pure speculation without a SHRED of facts to back it up.
- Touche 13y ago
  > No, the article didn't imply that. There's a whole paragraph about that. You quoted part of it. It's not a minor point of the article. There's no smoking gun but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Zigurd 13y ago
  There are many shades of gray in manufacturers helping the NSA to hack their products: from outright creating back doors, to using gimpy RNGs, to revealing bugs to the NSA before otherwise disclosing them, to using peripherals with back doors. Deniability and cover stories are part and parcel with such work. It is naive to claim it simply isn't happening.
JunkDNA 13y ago
Jacob made this assertion in his talk but presented no evidence. He explicitly said he wanted to call out the companies because they should be held accountable if they were complicit in this. But no evidence was presented that any of the hardware companies were coordinating with the NSA. Given that jail breaking continues to exist, it is entirely possible that Apple and other companies are victims of security exploits identified by the NSA. That being said, it would be good to get some companies on record on this.

salient 13y ago

First off, I don't think anyone except "tinfoil hats" really imagined the scale of NSA spying. Who really thought the NSA would try to subvert the cryptographic standards they pretend to create to "secure systems"? Who really thought they'd go to US service and hardware companies and ask them to implement backdoors for them? Also, there's a big difference between letting NSA protect US against Real Threats - real national security people-are-going-to-die threats, and spying not just on every single citizen on the planet (which includes corporate espionage), but on American citizens and companies, too. Just like everyone has a little "evil" in them, without all of us being Hitler, the NSA can do a little bit of spying on important targets, without going 10/10 on the scale of evil spying. So no, I really don't think "this is their job" or that "everyone knew they were doing this". I think the vast majority of people thought NSA would be reasonable with their spying. I also hate it when people say, "didn't you see when they passed the Patriot Act? You should've expected this." Perhaps, but if you go back to when they passed it, they did it in literally hours, and if you watch Bush speak about it [1], he makes it sound as if they are only going to use it to spy on the terrorists' communications - not everyone's. Going by how fast they passed the bill, and how few details were offered, you can't really blame most people for "not knowing". Heck, it was even called the "anti-terrorism bill" on TV, so I don't think people imagined that meant all of their communications are going to be swept up, because they were now thinking everyone is a potential terrorist (which is what "collecting it all" means) until proven otherwise by their systems. [1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRcfTakhFo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfRcfTakhFo

mgkimsal 13y ago
"Going by how fast they passed the bill, and how few details were offered, you can't really blame most people for "not knowing"." True, but perhaps someday we can learn to not advocate the passage of bills in such a short amount of time that representatives themselves do not have a chance to read or digest them, much less have debate about the specific contents. I say perhaps because I suspect we'll continue to see much more of this until there's some sort of mechanical change requiring a X day waiting period on any legislation introduced, and/or something requiring reps to sign a document with real penalties for perjury that they've read the damn things before voting on them.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

The absolute, fundamental founding principle of the US constitution is the limitation of powers of the government. Such power is limited by splitting it three ways and having separate institutions keeping each other in check, through the will of the people via voting electing representatives and the president, and through the very strong protections of individual liberty embodied in the bill of rights. And yet today we find ourselves in a situation where bit by bit those limitations have been eroded so severely that they might as well not exist. We have organizations, such as the NSA, who have multi-billion dollar budgets with limited oversight and little public transparency. Who similarly operate with limited oversight in conditions of near utter secrecy. Who, through those conditions, have essentially unfettered ability to undertake any conceivable surveillance effort imaginable and much else besides. It is simply untenable to have so many people with such power and no accountability and also maintain democratic institutions and preserve individual liberty. We should be thankful that, so far as I am aware, there has not been an individual with an excess of competence and ambition combined with a scarcity of morals or we would be in a much worse place today. But realistically it is only a matter of time before this power falls into the wrong hands. We have already been dangerously close in relatively recent history, such as with J. Edgar Hoover, we should not be courting fate again. It would not be an exaggeration to say that how we handle this crisis will greatly affect the near-future history of the United States and significantly affect the future of all mankind in the 21st century and beyond. This is potentially a defining moment for this generation.

pasbesoin 13y ago

In a severe but perhaps useful reduction, look at what this and other "secretive" activity appears in conjunction with. Arguments might thereupon be promoted, that it is also "in support of". Increasing income disparity. Exposure to versus shelter from the legal system and justice -- as stated in the U.S. in published, public laws and mounted through public, accountable law enforcement activities. Freedom of movement, or constraint of same (e.g. the secret, unaudit-able, un-appealable, unaccountable no-fly list). Etc. I'd argue that, in the large, a democratic society is based upon the willing participation of its members. Who share in responsibility for its security. What is being created seems already to be, and regardless of ones opinion of current circumstances, capable of being made into and becoming, rather something else. In other words, "equality before the law" already seems to be going out the window. (Well, that has always been somewhat of a myth, but, in many opinions, it seems to be getting worse.) Our democratic societies deserve and need to know about this, for the sake of remaining democratic. And it's time to pull out a potent word in description of what has been and is going on: Hypocrisy. Our leaders actions and their words -- platitudes -- do not align. And it's time for us to think hard about whether our own do.