Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

[Junkenstein]

Just going through that Ohtarzie piece, that's a cracking hatchet job:

Omidyar's organization operates a little like WikiLeaks, except it is staffed by well-salaried journalists and backed by Silicon Valley money.

Only "a little like Wikileaks?" Apart from the well-salaried journalists and backing by a billionaire actually implicated in the government blockade against Wikileaks, it's just like Wikileaks!

I'd say it's fairly plausible that he just made a couple too many jokes about some of the many, many problems and found himself in a bad spot.

[Junkenstein]

Hey Cain, is something important going on somewhere? Because this sounds like bullshit noise and distraction:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29891285

Mr Hannigan argues that the big internet firms must work more closely with the intelligence services, warning that "privacy has never been an absolute right".

"However much they may dislike it, [US technology companies] have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us," he writes.

"GCHQ and its sister agencies, MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, cannot tackle these challenges at scale without greater support from the private sector, including the largest US technology companies which dominate the web."

Oh Good, another one. I'm sure they're all AOK too.

Mr Hannigan goes on to say that Islamic State (IS), also known as Isil, has a different approach to using the internet than other extremist groups have had.

"Where al-Qaeda and its affiliates saw the internet as a place to disseminate material anonymously or meet in 'dark spaces', Isis has embraced the web as a noisy channel in which to promote itself, intimidate people, and radicalise new recruits."

He also says most internet users "would be comfortable with a better and more sustainable relationship between the [intelligence] agencies and the tech companies".

I'd settle for just having a touch of honesty about the current relationships between intelligence agencies and various tech companies. It would take quite a lot before I'm remotely "comfortable". 

The government's Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU), set up in 2010, has removed more than 49,000 pieces of content that "encourages or glorifies acts of terrorism" - 30,000 of which have been removed since December 2013.

Scotland Yard's head of counter-terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, has previously said that officers are removing more than 1,000 online postings a week, including graphic and violent videos and images

That counter-terrorism unit sounds a hell of a lot like a censorship department. The implications of any expansion of remit for them are potentially quite serious. Depressingly, that's almost inevitable too.

[Cain]

Sounds like a not so subtle dig at Apple and other companies, who are now designing their systems to actively thwart being used as part of a global surveillance system (Apple, to their credit, are not very happy about the whole situation).  I mean, Verizon and MS and a few others could give a fuck, but some are actually not too happy about having to open their systems entirely to the NSA's script kiddies and sexual deviants, or weaken security protocols on their say so.

[Junkenstein]

I thought the "designing systems to avoid being part of global surveillance network" was just marketing bullshit with no real substance as the agencies in question can produce court orders demanding access and confidentiality.

There's surely no realistic chance of any tech firm being immune to government interference/monitoring, if the government is so inclined. Assuming that's right, then it's just a case of levels of complicity with their involvement.

[Cain]

No, Apple have actually designed a system where it's pretty much impossible for either marketing companies or governments to access the kind of data they want, and are currently implementing it on one of their newer services (I can't remember which, not inclined to search atm).  I think if it were a matter of limited access and no screwing around with the safety parameters, they may be more inclined to agree, but it's not.  Full access means everything laid bare, and purposefully degrading security measures (the NSA and GCHQ's major activity after bulk surveillance) puts their systems at major risk of being compromised by hackers. 

Given some of the more sophisticated hacks of late, including the Morgan Stanley one, I can definitely see that worrying more capital intensive firms...like Apple.  Not to mention degraded security, like in the case of the iCloud hack, seriously threaten the prestige of the firm.  If actors and other influential celebs don't feel secure, they wont back a product, making the product less viable overall.

[Junkenstein]

Ah, that's a bit more sensible. I'll dig into the apple stuff a bit and see if anything interesting turns up. I'm somewhat sceptical about the inability of governments to gain access to wanted data though. I strongly suspect that's marketing bullshit.

[Rev. Mondo Anvil]

The question though, is when will checks and balances get out of hand? Greed is an extremely volatile substance.

[Junkenstein]

Care to expand on that at all?

[Faust]

No, Apple have actually designed a system where it's pretty much impossible for either marketing companies or governments to access the kind of data they want, and are currently implementing it on one of their newer services (I can't remember which, not inclined to search atm).  I think if it were a matter of limited access and no screwing around with the safety parameters, they may be more inclined to agree, but it's not.  Full access means everything laid bare, and purposefully degrading security measures (the NSA and GCHQ's major activity after bulk surveillance) puts their systems at major risk of being compromised by hackers. 

Given some of the more sophisticated hacks of late, including the Morgan Stanley one, I can definitely see that worrying more capital intensive firms...like Apple.  Not to mention degraded security, like in the case of the iCloud hack, seriously threaten the prestige of the firm.  If actors and other influential celebs don't feel secure, they wont back a product, making the product less viable overall.

Even more specifically then potential threats: Remember the google mail hack from a few years back by both chinese scam sites and more importantly Chinese intelligence services gained direct access to users mail accounts after having discovered the back door google had been ordered to implement.

Apple, microsoft etc almost certainly don't give a conceivable shit about peoples privacy. It is because the intrusive methods of the NSA have violated the one and only thing that is sacred to these companies:

It cost them money. Huge amounts of money for security audits after intrusions occur, loss of revenue over not being able to share certain information deemed sensitive with advertising companies and slowing down design and development to facilitate these idiotic dictates of intelligence agencies.

[Doktor Howl]

The question though, is when will checks and balances get out of hand? Greed is an extremely volatile substance.

Wait.

When will the checks and balances get out of hand?

Also, I was unaware that greed had a low flash point.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The question though, is when will checks and balances get out of hand? Greed is an extremely volatile substance.

Is this meant to parse as a sentence? I mean, the kind you communicate with?

[Cain]

No, Apple have actually designed a system where it's pretty much impossible for either marketing companies or governments to access the kind of data they want, and are currently implementing it on one of their newer services (I can't remember which, not inclined to search atm).  I think if it were a matter of limited access and no screwing around with the safety parameters, they may be more inclined to agree, but it's not.  Full access means everything laid bare, and purposefully degrading security measures (the NSA and GCHQ's major activity after bulk surveillance) puts their systems at major risk of being compromised by hackers. 

Given some of the more sophisticated hacks of late, including the Morgan Stanley one, I can definitely see that worrying more capital intensive firms...like Apple.  Not to mention degraded security, like in the case of the iCloud hack, seriously threaten the prestige of the firm.  If actors and other influential celebs don't feel secure, they wont back a product, making the product less viable overall.

Even more specifically then potential threats: Remember the google mail hack from a few years back by both chinese scam sites and more importantly Chinese intelligence services gained direct access to users mail accounts after having discovered the back door google had been ordered to implement.

Apple, microsoft etc almost certainly don't give a conceivable shit about peoples privacy. It is because the intrusive methods of the NSA have violated the one and only thing that is sacred to these companies:

It cost them money. Huge amounts of money for security audits after intrusions occur, loss of revenue over not being able to share certain information deemed sensitive with advertising companies and slowing down design and development to facilitate these idiotic dictates of intelligence agencies.

Yeah, I don't believe they really care one way or another about principle whatsoever - it's clearly a "bottom line" issue for them.

Of course, the more interesting question is, bureaucratic inertia aside, why are the European and American governments so determined to keep and expand every aspect of their intelligence programs?  I mean, we all know its not about terrorism.  OK, we can use control freakery or voyeurism as an excuse, but only so far.  Yet they act like you're proposing sacrificing their firstborn to Moloch whenever you mention that, maybe, we don't need to insert CCTV into the ocipital nerve of every living thing in the country.

[Faust]

No, Apple have actually designed a system where it's pretty much impossible for either marketing companies or governments to access the kind of data they want, and are currently implementing it on one of their newer services (I can't remember which, not inclined to search atm).  I think if it were a matter of limited access and no screwing around with the safety parameters, they may be more inclined to agree, but it's not.  Full access means everything laid bare, and purposefully degrading security measures (the NSA and GCHQ's major activity after bulk surveillance) puts their systems at major risk of being compromised by hackers. 

Given some of the more sophisticated hacks of late, including the Morgan Stanley one, I can definitely see that worrying more capital intensive firms...like Apple.  Not to mention degraded security, like in the case of the iCloud hack, seriously threaten the prestige of the firm.  If actors and other influential celebs don't feel secure, they wont back a product, making the product less viable overall.

Even more specifically then potential threats: Remember the google mail hack from a few years back by both chinese scam sites and more importantly Chinese intelligence services gained direct access to users mail accounts after having discovered the back door google had been ordered to implement.

Apple, microsoft etc almost certainly don't give a conceivable shit about peoples privacy. It is because the intrusive methods of the NSA have violated the one and only thing that is sacred to these companies:

It cost them money. Huge amounts of money for security audits after intrusions occur, loss of revenue over not being able to share certain information deemed sensitive with advertising companies and slowing down design and development to facilitate these idiotic dictates of intelligence agencies.

Yeah, I don't believe they really care one way or another about principle whatsoever - it's clearly a "bottom line" issue for them.

Of course, the more interesting question is, bureaucratic inertia aside, why are the European and American governments so determined to keep and expand every aspect of their intelligence programs?  I mean, we all know its not about terrorism.  OK, we can use control freakery or voyeurism as an excuse, but only so far.  Yet they act like you're proposing sacrificing their firstborn to Moloch whenever you mention that, maybe, we don't need to insert CCTV into the ocipital nerve of every living thing in the country.

It would be the perfect platform for almost untraceable insider trading/corporate espionage, a lot of people could get very rich from it, and could potentially stack the market in specific groups favor.

[Cain]

That was my potential thinking.  Keith Alexander, the former NSA head, commands a truly exorbinant fee to work as a "consultant" for major Wall Street financial firms.  In the UK, it's practically a revolving door between the big investment banks and the intelligence services, at certain levels anyway.

[Junkenstein]

Been coming for a while:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30138025

Comedian and activist Mark Thomas and five other people are launching legal action against the Met Police for monitoring their journalistic activity.

The group wants police to destroy files in a secret Scotland Yard database.

They allege that the Yard's National Domestic Extremism and Disorder Intelligence Unit is unlawfully holding information on them.

The Met said it would respond to the notice it had received of the action in due course.

Mark Thomas said: "The fact that none of the journalists are suspected of criminality but all of them cover stories of police and corporate wrongdoing hints at something more sinister, that the police seem to be spying on those who seek to hold them to account.

"The inclusion of journalists on the domestic extremist database seems to be a part of a disturbing police spying network, from the Stephen Lawrence family campaign to Hillsborough families, from undercover officers' relationships with women to the role of the police in the construction blacklist.

These days, I suppose it must be getting suspicious to not be on any lists. Given the mindless bureaucracy and money thrown into this pit it almost wouldn't surprise me to see a "not the lists list" leaked. Almost.