4 ms·

"does anyone seriously have a problem with this?" Yes. "there isn't really a domestic/whistleblower angle" As if Chinese goods don't get sold within the US[0

"does anyone seriously have a problem with this?" Yes. "there isn't really a domestic/whistleblower angle" As if Chinese goods don't get sold within the US[0]. [0] http://www.huaweideviceusa.com/ http://www.huaweideviceusa.com/

tptacek 13y ago
They don't backdoor all the Huawei devices. That's not how it works.
- streetnigga 13y ago
  Good thing I didn't say they did. I referenced Huawei USA as to highlight there are indeed domestic facets to this story. I am going to guess given your comment you can with authority detail what devices are and are not backdoored. If you cannot I don't see what your comment is meant to convey other than that 100% of Huawai hardware has not been subverted. Don't start this tactic of distorting someone's commentary again, the last time you decided to respond to me you went about aggressively making up bull-cock as if that is what I wrote. When it was pointed out and asked of you to address the subject instead of bringing up unrelated rubbish you only dug in changing to a belittling tone. Overall I would rather you not respond to me at all. Thanks.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Your comment doesn't make any sense unless you believe NSA backdoors all the Huawei devices. NSA's implants aren't limited to Huawei; Cisco and Juniper implants have already been disclosed. I figured you believed they were backdooring all of them; after all, you also believe "you have NSA affiliates like Palantir mucking about with firms like Hunton & Williams. Teaming up to do attack work on generally anyone who opposes the persons who make up the facade that is US Chamber of Commerce". I don't care who you want to reply to you or not. You're writing to the thread, not just to me, and vice versa.
    - streetnigga 13y ago
      How on Earth are you parsing my comment where highlighting a Chinese hardware maker's US arm is stating that 100% of the hardware has been backdoored by the NSA? I didn't even mention the agency. Just US domestic operations of a Chinese hardware maker. I was nice enough to cite the persons and companies involved in that previous thread, including the detained Barret Brown. You addressed his drug use without the topic at hand that he reported on? I mention an article written by Michael Hastings that referenced Brown, and you insert bullcrap as if I said intel agencies killed him? You went on further to bring up Monsanto and Nickelback? I ask you to not engage me anymore for a reason. You are a prick, tptacek. You are a prick.
      - 1457389 13y ago
        This exchange is pretty hilarious...
        streetnigga 13y ago
        It's not the most positive exchange but I have yet to have one with him that didn't result in the insertion of distortions or focus on the people carrying a message instead of the message. This was made clear with Hastings and Brown themselves being focused upon instead of the content of their articles. After things like Nickelback started to be brought up.. I stopped believing responses were being made in good faith. Fast forward to now and apparently I am saying 100% of that maker's devices are backdoored by the NSA, any other interpretation "doesn't make sense." While I acknowledge this is a public forum I would hope tptacek would also acknowledge I asked him not to engage me anymore previously, before he announces the forum's open presence as his mandate to respond.
        1457389 13y ago
        He does seem to have a habit of only engaging when he can nitpick or twist the argument, which is the definition of bad faith.
1457389 13y ago
Do you object to the very capability to exploit such commercial technologies? Or do you object to the NSA's exploitation of such capabilities?
- streetnigga 13y ago
  I think many systems commercial and otherwise will be open to exploitation. I don't necessarily object to the NSA or another government's intel service hunting those bugs either to protect against or to exploit. I do object overall to the creation of exploits or the weakening of systems. In the absence of a perfect system of governance I feel we should default to not giving unspeakable power to a concentrated few. The slides on the tools were leaked out of a for-profit firm that contracts for the NSA, next the tools themselves like music industry cohort MediaDefender[0] had happen to them? Or even worse a leak of a database the tools sift through like the Assad regime's BlueCoat[1] logs on political/sexual/religious targets? Another US firm Palantir was itself tangled in a scheme Glenn Greenwald reported pre-Snowden regarding the targeting of political activists via a solicitation of work through Hunton & Williams made by the US Chamber of Commerce[2]. I can't trust the US intel community as far as I can toss it when conflicts of interest are apparent at every level of clearance given to contractors. So I will probably frown upon most alphabet boys exploitation of capabilities. [0] http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3819529/Mediadefender_-_ANTI_P2P-mails_and_source_code http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3819529/Mediadefender_-_ANTI_... [1] http://bluesmote.com/ http://bluesmote.com/ [2] http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/
  - 1457389 13y ago
    Considering the scale of funding the NSA and other government agencies enjoy, I think that any focus on "cyber warfare" is going to lead to a "weakening of systems". But this is inevitable when you give state actors a monopoly on extralegal means. Like you said, the onus should be on a robust system of legal and regulatory restraints on this power, which is what the Snowden leaks and others have shown we definitely lack.

tptacek 13y ago

They don't backdoor all the Huawei devices. That's not how it works.

streetnigga 13y ago
Good thing I didn't say they did. I referenced Huawei USA as to highlight there are indeed domestic facets to this story. I am going to guess given your comment you can with authority detail what devices are and are not backdoored. If you cannot I don't see what your comment is meant to convey other than that 100% of Huawai hardware has not been subverted. Don't start this tactic of distorting someone's commentary again, the last time you decided to respond to me you went about aggressively making up bull-cock as if that is what I wrote. When it was pointed out and asked of you to address the subject instead of bringing up unrelated rubbish you only dug in changing to a belittling tone. Overall I would rather you not respond to me at all. Thanks.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Your comment doesn't make any sense unless you believe NSA backdoors all the Huawei devices. NSA's implants aren't limited to Huawei; Cisco and Juniper implants have already been disclosed. I figured you believed they were backdooring all of them; after all, you also believe "you have NSA affiliates like Palantir mucking about with firms like Hunton & Williams. Teaming up to do attack work on generally anyone who opposes the persons who make up the facade that is US Chamber of Commerce". I don't care who you want to reply to you or not. You're writing to the thread, not just to me, and vice versa.
  - streetnigga 13y ago
    How on Earth are you parsing my comment where highlighting a Chinese hardware maker's US arm is stating that 100% of the hardware has been backdoored by the NSA? I didn't even mention the agency. Just US domestic operations of a Chinese hardware maker. I was nice enough to cite the persons and companies involved in that previous thread, including the detained Barret Brown. You addressed his drug use without the topic at hand that he reported on? I mention an article written by Michael Hastings that referenced Brown, and you insert bullcrap as if I said intel agencies killed him? You went on further to bring up Monsanto and Nickelback? I ask you to not engage me anymore for a reason. You are a prick, tptacek. You are a prick.
    - 1457389 13y ago
      This exchange is pretty hilarious...
      - streetnigga 13y ago
        It's not the most positive exchange but I have yet to have one with him that didn't result in the insertion of distortions or focus on the people carrying a message instead of the message. This was made clear with Hastings and Brown themselves being focused upon instead of the content of their articles. After things like Nickelback started to be brought up.. I stopped believing responses were being made in good faith. Fast forward to now and apparently I am saying 100% of that maker's devices are backdoored by the NSA, any other interpretation "doesn't make sense." While I acknowledge this is a public forum I would hope tptacek would also acknowledge I asked him not to engage me anymore previously, before he announces the forum's open presence as his mandate to respond.
        1457389 13y ago
        He does seem to have a habit of only engaging when he can nitpick or twist the argument, which is the definition of bad faith.

1457389 13y ago

Do you object to the very capability to exploit such commercial technologies? Or do you object to the NSA's exploitation of such capabilities?

streetnigga 13y ago
I think many systems commercial and otherwise will be open to exploitation. I don't necessarily object to the NSA or another government's intel service hunting those bugs either to protect against or to exploit. I do object overall to the creation of exploits or the weakening of systems. In the absence of a perfect system of governance I feel we should default to not giving unspeakable power to a concentrated few. The slides on the tools were leaked out of a for-profit firm that contracts for the NSA, next the tools themselves like music industry cohort MediaDefender[0] had happen to them? Or even worse a leak of a database the tools sift through like the Assad regime's BlueCoat[1] logs on political/sexual/religious targets? Another US firm Palantir was itself tangled in a scheme Glenn Greenwald reported pre-Snowden regarding the targeting of political activists via a solicitation of work through Hunton & Williams made by the US Chamber of Commerce[2]. I can't trust the US intel community as far as I can toss it when conflicts of interest are apparent at every level of clearance given to contractors. So I will probably frown upon most alphabet boys exploitation of capabilities. [0] http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3819529/Mediadefender_-_ANTI_P2P-mails_and_source_code http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3819529/Mediadefender_-_ANTI_... [1] http://bluesmote.com/ http://bluesmote.com/ [2] http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/
- 1457389 13y ago
  Considering the scale of funding the NSA and other government agencies enjoy, I think that any focus on "cyber warfare" is going to lead to a "weakening of systems". But this is inevitable when you give state actors a monopoly on extralegal means. Like you said, the onus should be on a robust system of legal and regulatory restraints on this power, which is what the Snowden leaks and others have shown we definitely lack.