11 ms·
This really isn't any worse than the other invasions of privacy that have been revealed – but it's much easier to point at it as an egregious and visceral viola
by StefanKarpinski 13y ago
This really isn't any worse than the other invasions of privacy that have been revealed – but it's much easier to point at it as an egregious and visceral violation of privacy. Even though webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK have been doing, this may be some of the best fodder for arguments to limit such activities. So thank you, UK, for being so dumb.
- josephlord 13y ago> webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK have been doing It ties individuals faces to online accounts and computers and possibly addresses. Especially combined with increasing amounts of CCTV it removes further anonymity. I was also disturbed by the "dissemination of offensive images is a disciplinary offence" statement which implied that was not the case for other images and that it is only a disciplinary offence rather than a criminal one (misconduct in public office if there isn't anything else).
- StefanKarpinski 13y agoObviously, it's not a good thing, but is it really worse than recording all phone call metadata and phone call content?
- davepage 13y agoYes, because for political purposes, a compromising photo has far better blackmail value than other data.
- StefanKarpinski 13y agoBut you can't use that blackmail tool without revealing that you were spying illegally. Revealing that would be worse for the blackmailer than the blackmailee.
- kzrdude 13y agoCan't you get a tabloid to print it and give the source a cover story?
- denzquix 13y agoWell, if a security service decides it needs to blackmail someone, they're hardly going to send them a letter on official letterhead. In this case I imagine they'd pretend to be something like a small hacking group, infiltrating individual webcams arbitrarily/opportunistically. Something like that.
- Silhouette 13y agoRevealing that would be worse for the blackmailer than the blackmailee. Isn't that a bit optimistic? As things typically work out today, no official would ever be personally identified and held to account in court if something like this "accidentally" leaked. Meanwhile, the subject of the leak could have their life destroyed any number of ways, even if the image that gets leaked was taken out of context or otherwise not an accurate reflection of the person in question. We've seen far too many cases recently where innocent people have been severely harmed, on rare occasions even literally killed, by some part of the government, and yet remarkably often no-one is ever held responsible. Until the authority for these kinds of actions must be tied to a named individual, and the identity of that named individual can never be concealed from a court, and that named individual faces meaningful consequences for any abuses that happen on their watch unless they can show that their subordinate did not follow a proper direction (in which case responsibility transfers to the identified subordinate), and any ultimate subordinate involved in such an action who can't identify the responsible individual gets no more legal protection than any other citizen who did the same thing, this problem will continue.
- MarkTee 13y agoJoe Public couldn't care less about where the image originated after he's seen it. By that point the damage has already been done.
- kyro 13y agoThis is why you "leak" it and find a scapegoat.
- josephlord 13y agoIts additional. I haven't put thought into which I'd most want them to stop but the combination is worse than either on their own. It also allows the possibility of automated face recognition and social graph tracking in public places via CCTV (if not now then in the future).
- lern_too_spel 13y agoThis is worse because they are actually doing this. They are not actually recording all phone call content.
- brador 13y agoYou ever wonder why every device has a front facing camera when they're known to be one of the least used parts?.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoBecause they only cost $1-2 and people feel like they add value to the device (to use it with Skype, Yahoo!, Google+ Circles, and so on). There is no evidence right now that the intelligence services can remotely activate webcams on any device of their choosing. They would likely need to first install malware on most devices to accomplish that.
- grey-area 13y agoThey would likely need to first install malware on most devices to accomplish that. They can easily do that, that isn't really in doubt, though of course that's not why things have cameras, as you say, cameras are cheap and quite useful, no need for a grand conspiracy. I'm sure they wouldn't bother to exploit a machine unless they decide to target you specifically, but if they do decide to, given the resources they have available and the imperfect security on almost every OS, network and hardware you might use, they can easily use your phone or computer to record by installing malware. It's really very straightforward, all they need is a zero day in any of the network connected applications you use, baseband of your phone etc. William Binney (worked on Stellar Wind) and Edward Snowden have gone on record confirming these capabilities are used routinely - in particular I remember Binney confirming mobiles used as mics, even when turned off. For him this is a matter of fact capability, not at all as dangerous as mapping all our activities at once from metadata and content sweeps on a broad scale - I tend to agree. http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-program.html http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001733041/the-pro...
- declan 13y agoThere is, however, evidence that FedGov can remotely activate webcams on some devices of their choosing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-search-for-mo-suspect-in-bomb-threats-highlights-use-of-malware-for-surveillance/2013/12/06/352ba174-5397-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story_3.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-searc... The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico...
- ollysb 13y agoThis is important because this is perceived as completely different by the public. The idea that someone is watching you through your computer will have a much greater impact than someone scanning your emails.
- StefanKarpinski 13y agoExactly. Although really, we should be just as concerned about the other stuff, if not more so. But people get why this is really wrong. Because of the penises and vaginas.
- flexie 13y agoWhether it's worse or not, it's violating our privacy to an extent where there is barely anything left to be exposed. I assume they do the same with Skype, Lync etc. I hate the thought of being photographed by these creepy "intelligence officers" every time I'm on a webcam. Probably it also happens when we don't use the webcam.
- nobbyclark 13y agoIt's also something more tangible for non-geeks than other revelations so more likely to provoke a public reaction. "GHCQ has pics of your teenage daughter ..."
- joyeuse6701 13y agonow THAT would rile up the public.
- tripzilch 13y agoWell, it's probably true, so let them get riled.
- linker3000 13y agoDear lord, wait until the Daily Mail cops on to that one.
- northernmonkey 13y agoThey'd love it; Any opportunity to print borderline inappropriate pictures of scantily clad teenage girls.
- noir_lord 13y agoAhh the classic "Look how inappropriately this young woman has dressed in our 22 image all angles spread".
- 13y ago
- dmix 13y ago> Even though webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK Blackmail. Polticial, economic, and spying-related informant-turning blackmail. The CIA's primary business is getting informants and agents all over the world. Usually via some threat. This is perfect fodder for it. Using cheating and sex (ie homosexuality in the 50s) against people is one of the most classic examples of recruiting strategies for intelligence agencies.
- samstave 13y agoI'd wager that this is one reason homosexuality has been held as taboo for so long: it can be weaponized against your enemies for leverage and power.
- tetrep 13y agothat's like saying the only reason people aren't impervious to bullets is because governments wish to use guns to kill people. there will always be something taboo in society to blackmail people with.
- samstave 13y agoI think that's a horrible analogy. And yes, there always will, but I think that homosexuality as a taboo has been exploited, specifically.
- adbachman 13y agoThe analogy is pointing out that homosexuality is not a taboo because it's been exploited, it's being exploited because it's a taboo. Your original statement seemed to suggest that it is still a taboo because those who wish to exploit it want it that way. The cause is not power brokers, it's everyone (or enough of everyone) who makes taboos' shamefulness persist.
- samstave 13y ago
- forgotAgain 13y agoThis really isn't any worse than the other invasions of privacy that have been revealed I think you're incorrect on this. The level of intrusion here is much greater. There is a reason why video phones never really replaced voice: they are too revealing. This borders on voyeurism. Remember the stories of TSA agents joking about what they saw on full body scanners? I don't believe it is credible to think that these types of photos aren't used in a similar fashion here even though it's a different country and agency. And that's actually the least damaging way they could be used.
- nb1981 13y agoHits home when they're watching you.
- kyro 13y agoThis is the difference between someone reading that you do weird sexual things with your partner and having pictures to prove it. Blackmailing someone with a still webcam image of them engaging in an act would be a lot more effective than with an SMS text description. This is a big deal.
- acqq 13y agoWrong. It is worse. It's the first confirmation of Bulk, large scale collection Of Content, moreover the visual and explicit Of people not suspected of any crime.
- cryoshon 13y agoAgreed, this is important, if only for confirmation value. Before this, we didn't have hard evidence that the large scale collection was grabbing content of non-suspects in addition to the to/from data. I'm not sure what rationalization is left to hide under, but I bet that people will still try to say that this isn't so bad.
- poulson 13y agoI think that this leak will have the biggest effect. It bothered me enough that I emailed the entire college of computing at my university (I am a junior faculty member) to argue for setting ethical boundaries for big data projects, but, alas, I doubt that I will get a response.
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoAs a citizen of the UK, I say - that's quite alright, happy to help :-)
- tawan 13y agoSome insider, the next snowden, should leak the database to the internet. When crying children run to their parents, saying that some posted nude pictures of them, I think, this would an effective wake up call.