The war on encryption- The Five Eyes are watching you. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2018, 02:53:02 pm
content: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-country-ministerial-2018/access-evidence-encryptionInteresting that they’re choosing Australia to access our data.QuoteNote the 1984 style doublespeak term du jour “lawful access”Fucking fascists. At least you all down under are having some public discourse about this (I hope!).

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 05, 2018, 10:55:49 pm
content: Bump for the Aussies just waking up.Surely there are others here who find this disturbing.Even if you're not Australian, it can't hurt to submit your concerns before the comment period ends by goinghere.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 12:49:48 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 05, 2018, 10:55:49 pmNot at all. The great work the men and women do every day in our Police forces and security agencies are the reason why you can walk down the street and not worry about being blown up.Your dick pics and porn history are hardly of interest to Government agencies.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 01:04:35 am
content: I think it was originally meant to be used for very serious things like WMD proliferation and counter espionage (as a brand of military SIGINT), with only the highest levels of the military/CIA involved with monitoring, but it kept being re purposed for different more 'petty' things like drug trafficking, as guidelines for classifying things as national security issues broadened.The threat is because whereas it was intended probably to stop something like detecting communications patterns for a nuclear first strike, whereas now people wanna solve crimes and 'societal issues' using it. High levels of American government are not under immediate threat from something like a lone wolf terrorist or even high level drug dealer, but it violates privacy and the more common it is the more likely it is to be misused as its difficult to hold alot of people accountable.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 01:09:57 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 06, 2018, 12:49:48 amsure they are if someone does not like something you like. Nothing is preventing some guy from remembering something about you he does not like and doing something about it later.Are you not aware of certain hot-button issues like religious choice, abortion, political orientation, sexual identity? You think that extremist groups in your country are not interested in having their own moles in the government to spy on people?How do you think that some kind of organization like a Mafia or radical political group (bikies maybe for you aussies) don't want to have connections? Of course they do.. all those guys dream about knowing someone in the DMV, police department, FBI, various inspection offices etc. Information can be used for sizing you up, intimidation or blackmail. Or even corporate espionage. Often corruption is absolutely necessary for their methods of operation.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 01:28:23 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 06, 2018, 12:49:48 amYou have to remember that Snowden released the files because he couldn't see a relationship between what the NSA was doing and protecting the public at large. In other words, he did what he did because he felt large the scale surveillance he was seeing wasn't about not being blown up.Of course, there are also a rather perverse incentives for security theater to tell us we're being kept safe from harm. Just the financial side of things means there's by now a huge industry that thrives on us being made feel safe again.For the sake of completeness, NSA personnel has been reported to pass around and share explicit photos they intercepted. Not only is that an illustration of the lack of boundaries these agencies operate with, but it also means that yes, they do care about your dick pics.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 01:53:46 am
content: I always said track the lube and tissues to find out where the NSA analysts are

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 02:27:47 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 06, 2018, 12:49:48 amSo you have no problem with the government compelling private companies to provide them with a means to access any and all encrypted data anytime they want? Really?BTW - There is no credible evidence the mass collection of data by the NSA has prevented any terrorist attacks.I'm much more afraid of the police state than I am afraid of terrorists. It's by design that they would like you to live in fear and thereby be ok with loss of privacy and other civil liberties. Historically that has always been how it's done. It is sad that so many still fall for it.You have to remember - that once current governments are given access to all encrypted data then any future government, no matter how perverse or totalitarian will also have access to all encrypted data.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 02:46:03 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 06, 2018, 02:27:47 amI'm not even going to entertain some of your comments with a response.No one is talking about giving the Government unlimited access to everything, "any time they want". That's not how these things work.And if you think there is no evidence that our Government agencies have prevented some serious terrorist attacks, then you've been living under a rock for most of your life. Just last week, two potentially major events were prevented in Sydney that were widely publicised.This thread is going to de-rail, just like the others before it have. Some people just have this crazy opinion and mentality when it comes to Government agencies accessing information about them, yet have little to no understanding of what those agencies do or how they work. All I can say to those people is: You're welcome!

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 03:18:00 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 06, 2018, 02:46:03 amTrue no one is. This is about them having unrestricted access to all encrypted data - that is not "everything".QuoteWas that due to having unrestricted access to personal data? I don't think so.Sure, terrorist attacks are prevented- good. But currently this is accomplished through traditional means and not through mass surveillance or accessing encrypted data.History is clear - governments, police and intelligence agencies cannot be trusted with unrestricted access to personal data. Absolute safety from terrorist attacks can never be achieved and efforts to pursue it with expansion of the police state will breed more terrorists. The state would love to keep you in irrational fear to justify loss of civil liberties.Even if mass surveillance and unrestricted access to encrypted data did reduce you risk of being killed by a terrorist (there's no evidence for this) then at what cost? The chance of being killed by a terrorist is currently vanishingly small (more likely to be killed by an asteroid, a shark, a dog, etc) with police agencies using traditional means.As Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 11:57:03 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 06, 2018, 02:46:03 amSome people have crazy opinions and mentalities when it comes to government agencies. However, most just have a historic perspective and worry about the huge push to systematically monitor any and all data. We have to remind ourselves that the huge increase of the use of encryption for benign purposes has been a response to the Snowden files. If "going dark" truly is a problem, which is another discussion it's important to understand that the agencies have provoked that by their own actions.It's true that people have little understanding of what those agencies do or work. Unfortunately, that often seems to be by design. Whenever the public asks for a more complete story they are regularly thwarted by a wall of "can't tell you, that's secret", systematically undermining their ability to get any insights. The insights that the public has had have shown a worrying lack of boundaries when it comes to civil liberties or showing the complete picture, so it's not unreasonable for at least part of the public to have become quite wary.It's also obvious that agencies wanting to brute force their way into encryption isn't going to have the desired results. Without showing appropriate restraint and a modicum of transparency, people are just going to find alternatives to replace at least some of the trust these agencies have lost.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 12:30:19 pm
content: also how do you secure the judges if they don't have anonymous internet? They actually legally recommend judges use Tor when researching a case to hamper corruption. It would bypass your judicial system........and you can profile a jury that way too.How the hell would you put govt officials on trial? special jury?

author: Dielectric
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 12:32:38 pm
content: In before the lock...Putting aside the grave concerns I have about systems like this being used to track political dissidents, the moment there's any kind of back door like that, you can bet that an army of "black hats" is going to bust that wide open within the week. Even if it's a technically sound solution, someone will make a mistake and leave the keys somewhere on a flash drive in an airport. This is the government we're talking about. Do you think they'd be any better at security practices than Experian or Target?It simply puts ALL of our data at risk, especially with the super lax security mindset that almost everyone has.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 12:38:59 pm
content: Just remember - just because you're not paranoid does not mean that no one is watching you.

author: joseph nicholas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 01:27:59 pm
content: Just an aside, if your not sure any of this is true, just go to the local telephone switching station in your community and occasionally check to see if squad cars are parked out front.

author: Dielectric
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 02:15:44 pm
content: Quote from: joseph nicholas on September 06, 2018, 01:27:59 pmThat's after they've already tracked you with an IMSI catcher.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 02:25:02 pm
content: Quote from: joseph nicholas on September 06, 2018, 01:27:59 pm1975 called and asked for its paranoia back.Legal wiretaps have been far more advanced than working on a local exchange for many, many years now. Most employees of organisations with that capacity don't even need to leave their office chair to do it.

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 02:42:48 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 06, 2018, 02:46:03 amSorry mate, you and I agree on quite a few contentious issues for reasons we've touched on in private but not this one.Throughout history there have been abuses of power and they've not lessened, they've increased with the abundance of technology because it's so much simpler to collect in bulk and search at your leisure.The maxim 'if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' is the biggest and best reason why you should be afraid because it tells you that the agencies with the powers are trawling our private data.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 03:08:39 pm
content: Quote from: CJay on September 06, 2018, 02:42:48 pmI often hear that phrase thrown about by people who actually have no idea. The best ever example of that is one I don't want to bring up for fear of invoking Godwins law.The issue as I see it is I might be able to trust the Government not to use my data for nefarious purposes, but I actually can't trust the Government to keep the data they have on me safe and secure. Unfortunately the inevitable next person with access to that data is one I have no reason to trust.

author: djnz
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 05:03:27 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 06, 2018, 01:01:45 amCertificate pinning.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 05:23:18 pm
content: Just my 2 cents...A nefarious evil government who wants to find something on you and lock you up will do so, WITHOUT requiring any back doors. They will simply show up to your house in the middle of the house, arrest you and take you out to Siberia to a work camp for 10 years, your family thinking you're dead. This is not fantasy, it happened, BEFORE the age of internet. No evidence or backdoors required.While I enjoy having reasonable security and encryption tools at my disposal to thwart the casual hacker, it will not stop a very determined government with proper resources. And a very determined government may not care whether they even have evidence on you. "Oops! What is this USB key we found under your pillow! What, you say it's not yours? But we saw it there".

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 06:54:20 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on September 06, 2018, 03:08:39 pmYes, that is the issue. Once the precedent is set that tech companies are compelled to provide the government with encryption keys then that genie can not be put back in the bottle. We're not talking about hardware back doors here - this is about the loss of encryption.Just because you may trust the current government and its police agencies, does not mean the all future governments or government agencies or government contractors given access will be trustworthy.Too many people seem to be ignorant of history.Right now, at this point in history, data is everything. It's the ultimate point of leverage and control. If someone (or some government agency) has complete access to all data, they then have potentially unlimited power. And once the ability for individuals to have private conversations is lost, the any pretense of democracy will be lost. No independent judiciary, no free press, no unfettered political opposition.

author: JimRemington
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 07:07:40 pm
content: QuoteNaah, but they certainly are to the bozos who work in those agencies, and take a few minutes off now and then to work on their "personal issues".Do you know what that weirdo who lives next door to you does for a living?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 06, 2018, 11:12:59 pm
content: Techcrunch article

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 12:52:34 am
content: And another:https://www.activistpost.com/2018/09/five-eyes-countries-silicon-valley-security-backdoor.html

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 12:56:40 am
content: Quote from: JimRemington on September 06, 2018, 07:07:40 pmHoly shit, I think I'm that "weirdo next door".Seriously though, whilst there is always a dodgy person or two in a group of people or an organisation, those working in high security jobs don't (and can't) just sit back in their chairs and casually start browsing through people's private lives. Sure, if you're a target, then they haveverygood reason to look at you. The amount of people, red-tape and auditing involved is ridiculous. Even though they hide under a cloud of secrecy and the general public have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, they are still accountable in a big way.This whole encryption debate and who should have access to what is an argument which will never end. At the end of the day, regardless of how much noise you and I make, decisions are made in the background and generally, in Western society, those decisions are for the greater good.What I don't get are those people who harp on about it yet post their entire lives on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube etc... I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:19:10 am
content: are they? if you cause alot of anxiety and possibly mental illness from the stress of not being able to share or living under surveillance it can actually get worse. It can lead to crime itself. And various productivity and concentration losses that can degrade all sorts of useful services and overall efficiency. You can enter an entirely different mode of operation in a society that leads to problems.Did you ever talk to someone that used to live in the soviet bloc before? You can get some ideas on what will occur. I think of it like magnetic saturation, you get heat and the added unique effect of things slowing way the fuck down. Like building relationships with people and organizing groups. This would take many generations to be accounted for or there may be serious permanent mismatch with our evolved psychology.Like, would you ever wanna use a dating website under these conditions? Or talk about serious 'family problems' on the internet (you can actually bond alot through text and help someone out through a difficult situation or work with say a family thats far away from you)? I suspect this society will end up needing ALOT more social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. This will mean less people in other professions. Finding help will be difficult. Will government control the mental health field too? Or will they get an exception from surveillance? (i.e. emailing a psychologist you frequent). Do you know how many people can get out of a crisis situation doing stuff like that? Or even texting? Psychiatry will not work correctly without privacy.your gonna end up with alot of nutty mother fuckers that look like their on meth.

author: JimRemington
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:31:38 am
content: QuoteLooks like you missed out on the NSA "LOVEINT" story, one of many such abuses! Read about it in the Washington Post and elsewhere:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:31:47 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 07, 2018, 01:19:10 amTelevision, movies and the media dramatise a lot, the reality is, security agencies don't run around with guns, blowing shit up and putting their lives at immediate risk, in fact a lot of the work would make rather boring TV viewing. They also don't hire people who need to seek public recognition for what they do. There is plenty of in-house support available if a particular "job" bothers you and regular "welfare checks" are conducted by properly trained psychologists and psychiatrists. There are a lot of checks and balances, don't believe everything you see and read.But yes, absolutely,a lotof time is spent auditing and justifying actions, but it's absolutely necessary if we are to have organisations which are free of corruption. Much higher expectations are placed on people in those organisations that don't normally apply to regular civilians. For example, you forget to turn your phone off in the movie theatre, you'll get some disapproving looks. If you work for a security agency and take your phone anywhere near restricted or classified areas, expect to be fighting to keep your job.Once those people leave work for the day, they are normal people like you an I and live relatively normal lives. They still go out drinking and have a social life. For the most part, their spouses and family know where they work, but obviously not the details of what they do day-to-day.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:32:57 am
content: Do you know the observed and documented results of privacy on psychological state?You sound like a person that is concerned more about crime then anything else like quality of life.Usually people that spend long periods of time without privacy feel relief when they get privacy. It's intrinsic. Relief means there is stress present. Persistent stress is bad for all sorts of body parts, including the brain. Depression and other mental illness can result.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:39:02 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 07, 2018, 01:32:57 amAbsolutely. I guess I've had the (dis)pleasure of seeing the worst of society, everything from people who murder their kids to people who intentionally want to kill every Police officer, gay person, [insert religion here], by any means possible. One could say my view is slightly biased and I don't disagree with that. But you'd look at the world differently as well.I'm not saying Government agencies should have access to everything at the drop of a hat, but there should be secure mechanisms in place to access what is required to lock those people up, nothing more. It's a really fine balance.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:39:45 am
content: Are you scare some kind of massive crime increase will occur without unprecedented mass surveillance?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_dropYou think its just gonna go bananas soon? I see clear indicators to the contrary. The 90's should be known as some kind of insane cult/gangster age, because the internet was barely policed back then, and still real popular. Do you have some sort of relevant figures or only personal association and uncounted edge cases?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:48:00 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 07, 2018, 01:39:45 amI'm fearful that one day, there will be a major incident in Australia, it hasn't happened so far, but the number of terrorist plans which have been thwarted are on the increase. There are a lot of nut jobs out there and plenty more the agencies don't know about yet.In saying that, we are currently living in a very safe society and the majority of people go about their day not even thinking about terrorism. That's a great thing to have.The fact that we're seeing a drop and prevention of these sorts of crimes means that the Police and other agencies are doing something right. But they shouldn't just stop there because we've achieved a decent result (in the eyes of the public). A lot goes on behind the scenes that you and I aren't aware of and don't hit the news.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:56:08 am
content: Yes but its very possible other crime will increase due to this and the net effect could be worse.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 02:01:48 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on September 07, 2018, 01:56:08 amPossibly, but so far in Australia we're continuing to see a decrease in crimes which leads to the death of people. It's been that way since the 1980's.The other thing we need to remember is that technology is improving rapidly, law enforcement agencies need to try and keep up.

author: KL27x
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 02:06:19 am
content: Quote-Ronald ReaganA government agency must use up its budget in order to get an increase year after year. Government agencies have a life of their own. If they can't find enough terrorists to fight, what makes you satisfied they won't find a way to create more terrorists. Or to redefine new threats and start new wars.This is what the "blue line" is about. There's the same line in every government agency. Don't rock the boat. Show up to work on time. Have eternal salary and benefits whether or not the department is actually doing anything useful. If they have nothing to do, they'll find something.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 02:08:10 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 07, 2018, 02:01:48 amthe east coast has the same thing but there has not been significant gestapo legislation other then the patriot act

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 12:02:07 pm
content: Quote from: KL27x on September 07, 2018, 02:06:19 amBut Ronald McDonald also said; Where is the war room, upon his first step into the whitehouse. Just prior he had watched Dr Strangelove.ISO rejected NSA crypto code into standards.https://www.wikitribune.com/article/67004/

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 12:10:50 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 07, 2018, 01:48:00 amAre you sure "these sort of crimes" are prevented by mass surveillance? This has been claimed by governmental agencies quite a few times before, but it seems journalists are quite consistently finding out that it's actually traditional police work or in some cases just luck. Mass surveillance doesn't seem to be a major contributor to prevention. Having government officials going on record and making demonstrably false claims about the effectiveness of mass surveillance programs to influence public opinion is incredibly uncomfortable.The lack of transparency from the various agencies has been addressed in my previous post, so I'll direct you there.https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 01:54:08 pm
content: Wow... I can't believe what I've just read in this 'thread'... :-)I was hinting at this, just a month or two ago, while simply talking about various softwareoptions available today, for those who wish to utilize it, for no other reason that..."Big brother, don't tell me what to do", as opposed to directly having anything to hide.I copped all kinds of flak, including reminding me how inconsequential my little life needsto be 'hidden/protected' compared to their Ivory towers of power/information. (I just cop it).The fact remains, that there is intervention from numerous countries/agencies, to 'not' allow,(or try to), forms of encryption that 'they' can not get past, or have a back door to !!It was a statement of fact... that I had to dodge bullets from. That's just a 'given'.Dare I say it again, (no...), but a 'certain' OpenSource cryptology main-stay for years, wasshut down, and I mentioned the 'new' OpenSource crowd that is following through.Heaven forbid I shared some basic information & links.I'm sure the previous purveyors of 'dialog' will sniff out MY sacrilege for daring to commentagain, here, and find a way to belittle me... again... (Water off a ducks back). You'll see !!!

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 04:04:52 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 07, 2018, 12:10:50 pmIt's always 'just' old fashioned police work or luck, every time there's a terrorist incident it turns out that either the various agencies had either known about the perpetrator and not kept an eye on them or they were completely unknown, the first, I would agree and sign off on an increase in funding for.The second, there is little chance that an unknown would be picked up by anything other than 'luck' or intrusive mass surveillance, you can't fund 'luck' and mass surveillance is unacceptable in and to a free society because it immediately stops being a free society when your every move is monitored and examined.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2018, 09:05:43 pm
content: Bill Binney... one more time... on "the eyes that watch you".

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 08, 2018, 05:29:18 am
content: Quote from: CJay on September 07, 2018, 04:04:52 pmIt's not always "just" old fashioned Police work. Far from it. Yes, your front-line Police do an amazing job and get some great intelligence from seemingly mundane interactions like vehicle stops etc... but that's just the tip of the iceberg. They often have no visibility or feedback on what happens after that.There isa lotof work that happens within specialist units and multi-agency teams. Their job is largely to gather intelligence and monitor targets every day of the week. For every 1 front-line Police officer who comes across someone with terrorist links, there is probably a group of 20-30 other people dealing with various aspects of the same person. Likewise for every 1 incident you read, there are probably 10 others you never hear about.Yes, sometimes it happens that "the stars align" and law enforcement just get lucky, but most of what you see and read in the news is due to months if not years worth of careful planning and targeted information gathering.The other thing you need to remember is that mass surveillance is not about gathering information about everybody willy-nilly. Not only is it hugely time consuming but a terrible waste of resources. Law enforcement agencies don't just take stabs in the dark hoping to get lucky. Monitoring known targets often leads to the unknown ones, you follow the rabbit hole. As I said earlier, these people who jump on the band wagon and shout from the rooftops often have absolutely no understanding on how law enforcement agencies actually operate.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 08, 2018, 11:38:56 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 08, 2018, 05:29:18 amWhat you're describing here is targeted surveillance, not mass surveillance. We know that various agencies can decrypt SSL streams and other forms of encryption common on the internet. In this point in time it's apparently not feasible to apply it to all traffic and that sounds exactly like what you'd want, although we should expect these capabilities to rapidly evolve as they've done in the past. Yet they keep pushing for the ability to see all traffic all the time.And again, there never has been evidence for mass surveillance being the key or even being a significant contributing factor to preventing attacks. Journalists have done extensive research and in none of the many cases presented as such the claims turn out to be valid. If the various programs are even moderately effective it should be trivial to prove that, but it turns out to be consistently problematic. What might be worse is the willingness to dispense untruths about this to skew the public debate.https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/

author: duak
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2018, 02:02:11 am
content: My biggest concern with the back door paths is that someone nefarious (other than a government) gets into a system and either steals or messes with something. I remember seeing something 20-25 odd years ago about some poor guy who got declared dead. Naturally, pension payments stopped and utilities and credit cards were cut off. He lost access to his bank accounts and credit cards and doing anything with them set off fraud alarms. This was all done with the disparate IT infrastructure back then and the bad information still jumped from database to database like wildfire. Imagine something like that today where 100,000 people are mistakenly declared dead. Imagine this happening day after day. How would we put things back together if it only took one infected database to kick off another data plague?Right now I'm dealing with the local telco accidently shutting off my landline. The day it happened, all incoming calls were blocked and it took 4 hours to reset. It went out again about an hour or so after the nice lady from the telco called to ask how the upgrade went. Since there was no upgrade, well maybe we can schedule one for you? The 2nd time the landline went out, I couldn't dial out either. This telco's help line is so busy and prone to being dropped that I just went to one of their stores. Well, the repair guy will be out tomorrow to trace the line back into the exchange and re-establish it. Interesting, because the internet is on the same line and it still works. (Crossing my fingers.)I can just imagine this telco's customer database being hacked and garbling the exchange's database containing all the customers' lines, options and whatnot.As an aside, the fellow that operated our stockroom used to work for the telco until they retired him. Whether it's true or not, he said he and the other technicians at the downtown exchange used to listen in on some of the stockbrokers' lines to get some stock buy/sell info.Cheers,

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2018, 03:02:15 am
content: These governments act like a well mannered rapist that asks the victim to kindly remove their pants, along other protective measures (such as weapons for self defense) before engaging in the "lawful" act. The "or else" part also exists, of course, in case one doesn't comply. What is "lawful" and "reasonable" to them, might be an outright violation of privacy and other fundamental rights to us. We have the right, as private entities, to enforce encryption, cyber security and any counter measures deemed necessary.Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2018, 09:44:07 pm
content: Halcyon, your arguments might make sense if, and only if, we assume two things:1. Law enforcing agencies and governments are, and will always be:- well behaved- incorruptible in any way- well intended in respect to the people.2. The law-enforced backdoor can be 100% safeguarded from the bad guys' access.Both assumption are obviously unrealistic. History teaches us that shit happens no matter what, and good guys sometimes became bad.The proposed backdoor creates a vulnerability for all the people, including the people from governments and the people from law enforcement. The risk is huge for everybody.What will be the benefits? Saving lives?Well, in the first place, the law enforcement seems to do a fine job right now, with all the encryption in place, and I'm very grateful for all their efforts, a big and sincere thank you.Now, let's go for the hard question, risks and benefits:- The possible benefit is to save a few more lives.- The possible risk is to enslave 7 billion.Which one is weighting more?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 11, 2018, 11:03:58 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on September 11, 2018, 09:44:07 pmSure and I agree but the "perfect world" doesn't exist. Can you name one organisation, private or Government which behaves like that?You trust the banks with your entire cash savings.You trust your service providers to properly account for usage on the services you use and keep your details private.You trust your roads authority to maintain your driving record and licence information.You trust your doctor to maintain your records accurately and securely... the list goes on and on.As I mentioned before, it's a very fine balance, but if anyone thinks Law Enforcement is always at the cutting edge of technology, they'd be wrong. In some aspects they are, in others they fall woefully behind. Governments are constantly playing catch-up and they must keep up with emerging technologies. To settle for 10 year old gear and methodology is just out of the question. Law enforcement agencies are doing a fine job, granted, but they largely make-do with what they've got there are many, many challenges and roadblocks along the way. Ultimately, it's society's loss.As I also mentioned, I'm not advocating that back doors (necessarily) should be built-in to technology, nor should any organisation just have free-range to access whatever they want, whenever they want. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not a simple one. You'll never keep everyone happy.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2018, 11:08:23 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on September 11, 2018, 09:44:07 pmWell said.Re point #2 - Just 2 days agothis was reportedQuote

author: xaxaxa
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2018, 10:37:41 am
content: IMO crime is already low enough as is, and I'd rather have more civil liberties than a reduction in crime.

author: bloguetronica
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 01:09:41 pm
content: Quote from: xaxaxa on September 12, 2018, 10:37:41 amThat depends on the country you are in. But anyway, these measures against encryption won't prevent crime. In fact, they will increase cyber crime.Kind regards, Samuel Lourenço

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 03:15:59 pm
content: I'm not sure about it. Simply put: if you have the need to encrypt or hide something, why on earth you would use conventional storage methods? Especially if you alredy know it's not secure by design?If encryption won't work, then it's time for an alternative.ORwrite your own encryption application and be done with it.I mean, if for the NSA 1 mln usd is a "resonalble sum", you can still try to make an offer about 400 k usd and give the keys...

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 08:53:44 pm
content: Quote from: R005T3r on September 13, 2018, 03:15:59 pmWrite your own code for what and on what?

author: CJay
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 09:00:46 pm
content: This:https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/13/human_rights_court_slams_ukgovs_snooping_regime/Is why people don't trust intelligence agencies and governents.https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/yahoo-webcam-users-intimate-images-intercepted-by-gchq-spy-programme-snowden-files-reveal-9158140.htmlThat too.And these are the ones that have been exposed.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 13, 2018, 10:30:09 pm
content: Quote from: R005T3r on September 13, 2018, 03:15:59 pmBecause conventional storage is cheap and widely available.Today's level of encryption is sufficient even for the highest of Government classified information, provided its implemented and handled in a secure way and kept well away from the internet and portable storage devices.

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2018, 01:38:21 pm
content: Conventional storage may be cheap and widley available, but it does not change the fact that if it's flawed by design, it remains flawed by design. They want that every device on earth has a backdoor plain and simple, right? Then it's simply not worth the risk, if you truly want to hide something at paranoia-level.I know it sounds paranoid, but that's the fact.... Not to mention that now various agencies are capable of decrypting pretty much anything there's on the market and as time goes on, they will be able to have more specialized and powerful tools to do that.That is why I am suggesting to see alternatives to conventional storage + encryption.... I'm not saying that encryption does not work, I'm 100% sure that it works, but on the other hands we cannot be 100% sure that what we already have is vulnerable and thus it poses threat.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2018, 02:36:43 am
content: Quote from: R005T3r on September 14, 2018, 01:38:21 pmWhat is an alternative to "conventional storage"?

author: R005T3r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 01:11:50 pm
content: Well, but of course : not storing them and live happily...We all know that government want to spy on you, they want your money all for themselves, they want to control everything because it's beneficial to them and they are not trustworthy. But, what can we do? There's nothing we can do, and there's nothing they can do to stop crime, because crime happens, it is in the natural order of things, so if they believe that cracking any kind of encryption is beneficial because you discover more criminals, good, however, compared to years ago, informations travels around the world, and so, we have the knowledge that what was thought to be sci-fi in fact is the harsh truth, so probably if we have informations we want to keep secret, is better destroying them and be done with it.The war on encryption and the government spying... Eh? We are talking about the sense of Lorem Ipsum....

author: Beamin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 02:14:21 pm
content: We need encryption because big companies can't be trusted with our data. Especially companies that contract for the government. In the US the company Cambridge analytica, I think it was, that was caught making black mail for the trumps had a data breech where all our voting info for the whole country was stolen. Everyone party affiliation, address, DOB, everything, is now "public record", you can never get that back or fix that. Private companies shouldn't even be allowed to have this data. Or look at the millions that shopped at target and got their bank details stolen. Our quest to make money off everything is catching up to us. We tried to make the space shuttle profitable and it blew up because they couldn't wait for the ice to thaw, that would mean less profit as time is money."An innocent person who has nothing to hide shouldn't be concerned with us seeing your person business" I so wrong and was first said in the McCarthy era. I say to those people: Next time you take a shower open the blinds on your bath room window and put up a clear shower curtain. You are not jerking off in there, you have nothing to hide.Plus that has so many other implications for people like me who have changed who they were/are and don't want to announce to the world that they used to be a different person. If you are both genetically lucky enough, and have put in enough effort, pain, time, emotional energy and money to change, the last thing you want is to be "found out/clocked" because some company was putting profits above personal privacy. I have no idea what to do when consumer reports and other personal data I don't have access to, can't see, or change, runs an algorithm that comes up male now says female. Does that get encrypted? No it's put on a billboard with big flashing lights on it.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 04:27:19 pm
content: The fact that "the 5 eyes" exists is disturbing in of itself, the stuff they do is just insane. To make matters worse the majority of people are either ignorant or just don't care. nobody will ever win this fight politically as they are just too powerful and there is not enough people to fight. Would require a civil war on a large scale and that won't happen if most people arn't on board.So technology seems to be the only way to really fight this, need to always be a step ahead. I think we really need a proper mesh net to replace the internet or at least run alongside it, for those who do care about privacy. Banning encryption is extremely disturbing though and wonder if it would apply to everything and not just the current internet. I do wonder how it would be enforced. I guess the same way as ham radio? It's sickening how much governments now days are chipping away at freedom and rights though. It's not what our ancestors fought for.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 21, 2018, 11:43:25 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on September 21, 2018, 04:27:19 pmThis is the problem, people tend to fear what they don't understand or have no knowledge of. You're basing this solely on what you read about in the news. It's hardly balanced. Even if you take what Snowden leaked, it wasn't very high-level stuff (by comparison). What he had access to was only the tip of the iceberg and even then, what was widely publicised were selected pages without context.The 'Five Eyes' has existed for many decades in one form or another. You only need to look at the work undertaken at Bletchley Park during World War II to begin to understand some of what actually goes on. Five Eyes isn't the bogey man people assume it is. Yes, the stuff that goes on behind the doors of the various Five Eyes facilities is insane (in a good way) but to say it's "disturbing" is not only inaccurate but shows a complete lack of understanding of what they actually do (but perhaps rightly so, you don't need to know).Quote from: Red Squirrel on September 21, 2018, 04:27:19 pmCivilians (whether good or evil) are already in many ways a step or two ahead of Government agencies. There are freely available applications that you can carry around in your pocket that the Government cannot access. It's a constant game of cat and mouse. But bare in mind, the Government aren't interested in you as a normal citizen, what they need to know, they already know because you've provided it to them. This whole thing isn't about you, your elderly neighbour or the kids down the street.As for the "mesh" network they already exist. The largest and most publicised is the "Dark Web", although if you think that it is secure and will keep you hidden from the authorities, think again. However, unless your intention is to buy illegal firearms or drugs or trade child abuse material, then I don't know why you'd want to be part of it.What "we" are fighting isexactlywhat our ancestors fought for. Except today we largely don't use bombs and tanks, we use technology.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 02:16:43 am
content: These are the same old arguments governments have always used to justify taking away civil liberties and attempting to control the populace. It's always "you don't understand" " if you only knew the truth" etc, etc. It's a ruse to keep the people fearful and in a state of imagined dependence.Bringing up Bletchley Park and WWII is a red herring. There was a wartime imperative then that does not exist now. Sure the manufactured "war on terror" is used as an excuse - but it is an end unto itself. Keep the people in fear and appeal to manufactured "patriotism" to get them to fall in line and not question. History is ripe with multiple examples of this kind of abuse of power.Fortunately, slowly but surely people are waking up. More and more are starting to realize that they've been sold a con, and the Western powers are slowly losing their stranglehold. This latest effort to further abduct peoples right to privacy by neutralizing all encryption is a sign of their desperation to maintain control for the corporate masters. They may win this battle but the war is far from over. People in the West are losing their faith in the "democratic" institutions due to the obvious abuses of power.The scary part is that their desperate efforts to hold onto power is resulting in the rise of populist demagogues who will make things worse in the short term. The elites are so desperate to maintain control they don't care - they'd rather see it all burn down than allow individual liberties to flourish.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 06:11:42 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 22, 2018, 02:16:43 amI don't think so at all. When have you ever heard a Government say that? Governments everywhere do everything they can to protect these sorts of organisations and the less the public knows, the better. If anything is "the same old" it's that whole notion of Government wanting to "keep the people fearful" and in a "state of imagined dependence". Those are just fairy tales and pretty old ones at that.Quote from: mtdoc on September 22, 2018, 02:16:43 amIs it? I don't think so. What went on at Bletchley Park is exactly what goes on behind the closed doors of SIGINT today, albeit the technology has evolved by orders of magnitude, the objective is the same. If you think the need for high quality intercept and intelligence capabilities don't need to exist today, then you are hugely mistaken and must be living in a bubble.Quote from: mtdoc on September 22, 2018, 02:16:43 amDon't get me wrong, peoplearewaking up to the fact that many Governments in the last few decades have been utterly useless, but that has nothing at all to do with the current conversation. With respect to signals intelligence, Policing and counter-terrorism, there is nothing to "wake up" from. As I said, the public are kept in the dark for good reason. You and I don't need to know what goes on behind those doors (regardless if you think you do). I've experienced first-hand the effect these organisations have on criminals and public safety, yet, I don't get told of the workings of everything.This mentality of all Government = Bad, unlimited encryption/privacy = Good should only be reserved for those "tin foil hat" people. As I said, many people are afraid of what they know nothing about, so therefore is must be bad. It's just bonkers and fails on so many levels.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 07:45:46 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 22, 2018, 06:11:42 amIt is said on a regular basis in USA and UK and probably other countries as well. I know from my travels and friends in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the late 80s that the same things were being said to them. Historically, police states have always used those type of justifications for assault on personal liberties.QuoteA strawman. I never said that. I am a big fan of government when it is serving the public interest and accountable to regular citizens. With few exceptions, it’s been decades since we had that kind of government on a national level in the USA. We now have 17 intelligence agencies in the USA. Why is that? Eliminating 15 of them would not imply that “all Government is bad” or even that all government intelligence gathering is bad.QuoteAlmost. “Unlimited “ is a strong word. I and most people would agree that convicted criminals and those for whom honest police work have identified as posing an imminent threat (confirmed by honest judicial oversight) lose some privacy rights. But thats not at all what we are talking about here. We’re talking about mass surveillance and now government coercion of private companies and individuals to give up their right to encrypt their data. This means abdication of the right to privacy which for most civilized people is considered a fundamental human right. And in the US it is a subterfuge of the 4th amendment.QuoteIt’s quite presumptuous to imply that others “ know nothing” (but you do!). Many ordinary people are quite well informed and there are countless scholars, journalists, historians, ex high ranking intelligence officers and government officials who are expressing the same or greater level of alarm at the expansion of the intelligence apparatus and police state.I find it fascinating how some can be so narrowly focused (or fearful) that they don’t recognize the historical parallels that are going on all around them. It gives me a new appreciation for how it happened that so many countries allowed the slow creep of Totalitarianism to take hold without much fight.The new twist on this historical phenomenon, is that we now have anInverted Totalitarianismto use the term coined by the late great Sheldon Wolin.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2018, 08:04:11 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on September 22, 2018, 07:45:46 amAbsolutely. At the very least we can agree on one thing.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2018, 11:57:28 am
content: Global warm-ongering is totalitarianism on a global scale newer seen before. God be almighty good to Dumpf for his clean coal project!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2018, 09:42:30 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 22, 2018, 06:11:42 amWhat you're saying is dangerous in different ways. We do need to be aware what our governments do. In functioning societies there has always been a healthy tension between the rights various governments allocate themselves and the liberties of the people. It only makes sense people at various levels are trying to expand their capabilities to do things slightly beyond their reach and keeping that in check is necessary. The fact that both watch each other and raise a flag when the other oversteps his boundaries too far is what makes the system work and keeps it healthy. We keep each other in line. In more totalitarian or disfunctional regimes this balance has grown lopsided. A good citizen is a vigilent and critical citizen. Not one that keeps his mouth shut and lets things happen without a word. That's when bad things start to happen.Unlike was historically the case, the level of surveillance in much more intricate than it has ever been. Contrary to your ideas, the various agencies do take a keen interest in what normal citizens excercising their rights do. There are many people who take an interest in these matters and they are much better informed than you give them credit for. It's not a fear or the unknown. Various intelligence people have come forward with their stories because they felt that what they were doing had little to do with their national security mandate. It's not just Snowden. Turkey is a recent example of how seemingly benign information is used against law abiding citizens with what's considered the wrong opinions. Just last month the European court of human rights found that UK's GCHQ data collection regime has violated human rights. They're known to collect a wide array of data, including internet browsing behaviour of regular people inside and outside of their country. We know that in the US protesters have been tracked and that movements and protests have been surpressed by using that information. In many cases there's an obvious and blatant disregard of the rights of citizens and a lack of restraint on the part of the various agencies. You don't need a law prohibiting it to understand that spying on innocent people through their webcams on a large scale isn't an acceptable practice, yet that's exactly what both the NSA and GHCQ did. However, even without malicious intent the availability of a large amount of information means the ability to assert pressure onto parties with different interests than those of the government. It's only natural and pretty much inevitable that this will happen as people are trying to optimize the job they do with the tools at their disposal, but it should worry anyone with a bit of historical sense. Controlling information means controlling people so an attempt to access all information should be considered an attempt to grab power, whether that's the intent or not. A government with total access to all information is for many intents and purposes a totalitarian regime. Privacy isn't a matter of national security, it's a civil rights issue.When one party is making sure he has access to all the information and discourse and the other is supposed to sit still and be quiet like a child at the barber's, things are bound to go awry. Discourse and dissent is a vital part of a healthy society. A government is there to serve us and our best interests, not the other way around. A government only exists by virtue of its constituents and we are to keep an eye on it as much as it keeps eyes on us. That some things need to be temporarily obscured from the people is only logical, but that doesn't mean the people should be kept in the dark. It's the people who keep their goverments accountable.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2018, 09:50:24 am
content: The sad thing about discussions like these is that the invitable outcome seems to be that people go "harumpf!" and turn around and leave the discussion a bit more indignant than they were before, but without changing their stance or opinion in the slightest. Confirmation biases seem to run amok and evidence brought into the discussion seems to be carefully ignored.As Trump would say it "This is the saddest thing in the history of sad things. Not good. Very bad."

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2018, 10:37:59 am
content: This has been going on for a long long time, look upECHELONfor example. Probably was legit in the beginning but it's a slippery slope and as we have become more and more dependent on the internet, cellphones, social media and so on, all this "just in case" mass surveillance has become highly problematic. Just think about all the things you use the internet for now: texting; email; banking; reading/watching news, fiction, all kinds of media; even dating. These days governments keep a record of all thatfor several years, supposedly "just in case" you decide to become a terrorist in ten years.You have to be pretty naive if you don't realise these powers are also used for industrial espionage and other more nefarious purposes, and that's just the government sanctioned stuff, who knows how much of it leaks to less scrupulous entities. One interesting tidbit one could read in the United States diplomatic cables leak was a report on a conversation with one of the top employees of Shell (iirc, it might have been another one of the big oil companies). They were talking about the situation in Nigeria, about problems with corruption there and how all the big oil companies had agents in the Nigerian government, but she was reluctant to share too much with the US government because the US gov. was rumoured to be too leaky. Kind of ironic reading about it in leaked cables, but I don't think she was referring to whistleblowers.The world is a pretty rotten place and things can suddenly go completely nuts, it happens, and in that case you don't want governments sitting on all that info about their citizens.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2018, 11:24:38 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 24, 2018, 09:50:24 amAbsolutely. But the same can be said for any number of semi-political discussions. As I mentioned before, people tend to fear or at least disapprove of ideas they have little to no knowledge about and basing their opinions on what is reported in mainstream media.At the end of the day regardless of what you and I think or say, this stuff is still going to continue behind closed doors and that's the way it should remain.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2018, 06:51:37 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 24, 2018, 11:24:38 pmThanks for proving my point, I guess? People are much more informed than you're indicating, as has been discussed in the third link below. Pretending they're not is both insulting and silly, as is pretending that it's just an unfounded fear of the unknown. Many people have informed themselves quite well. The remaining lack of knowledge of what the agencies are doing is in large part malicious intent of those agencies themselves, as has been discussed in the post in the first link below. They prefer to veil themselves in vagueness, although not with enough success to obscure their systemic lack of restraint and blatant disregard of civil rights. The rights we have given them come with a responsibility and that trust has been thoroughly broken, which is where the actual disapprovement comes from. It's also clear that the effectiveness of mass surveillence is unproven or actually disproven, as has been discussed in the post in the second link below. The importance of the people holding the various agencies that are violating their civil rights accountable has been discussed in the post in the third link below.Your arguments or viewpoints have all been discussed before and have been blown clean out of the water, yet you simply refuse to even acknowledge the arguments discussed and simply reiterate the statements you've made from the very start. Unfortunatly that's exactly what I referred to in my previous post in the fourth link below. I guess this is the point where you go "harumpf!"https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1803530/#msg1803530https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1808681/#msg1808681https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1845905/#msg1845905https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-war-on-encryption-the-five-eyes-are-watching-you/msg1845917/#msg1845917

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2018, 08:45:34 pm
content: " just trust us""we know better""you don't know what we know - you're uniformed""what we do should be kept secret""we only use bulk surveillance to root out terrorists".Uh huh. Sure.UK intelligence agency admits unlawfully spying on Privacy International:QuoteSnowden's comments on this today are spot on -it's not about terrorism, it's about power and control. Encryption threatens that.

author: rjp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 12:00:39 am
content: https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/spyware-on-phone-fears-as-dutton-pushes-new-security-laws-20180924-p505oc.htmlthe Australian government is pushing for spyware to be installed on all phones so that it can be activated as needed.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 12:12:39 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 25, 2018, 06:51:37 amI don't disagree on your point. You're now just making a point for the sake of argument. I'm sure that there are some people who are well informed. No one is disputing that, but MOST people are not. If you knew me, you'd also know that I never "pretend", just to make that point clear.Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 25, 2018, 06:51:37 amThat's YOUR opinion but myself (and others) have a differing view. You not agreeing with me doesn't give your argument any more validity that it already has (good try, but it doesn't work that way).Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 25, 2018, 06:51:37 amYou guess wrong. But that's OK too. ;-)EDIT: I really couldn't care less whether you agree with my views and opinions or not. The world will still carry on as normal. This mentality of "if your views aren't equal to mine, then they are wrong" that some people tend to have on this forum needs to stop, we aren't school children. Most of us are smart enough to respect differing views without resorting claiming that they are incorrect. I'm not trying to change your mind, whether you do or don't has zero impact on me. Personally I welcome open discussion and enjoy seeing how others perceive things. I enjoy learning and being closed-minded never enters into my thought process, I might not always agree but that doesn't make either side of the argument more or less valid.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 12:41:29 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 26, 2018, 12:12:39 amWhat gives our arguments more validity is that we've quoted or referenced various sources. Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't automatically grant those opinions equal value or validity. Content determines the value of the opinion and we haven't seen too much of it to support the case of ever expanding mass surveillance, other than reassurances that it's all really in our best interest but without quantifying that assurance. It should be noted that it's not surprising that little has been quantified in this thread, as even the various agencies themselves have proven incapable of providing much tangible evidence of the protection mass surveillance supposedly gives us. They've tried, but what they provided has been quickly dispelled by journalists and researchers.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 12:45:22 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 26, 2018, 12:41:29 amIt doesn't, see my edit above that I made just as you were typing, but claiming that my views have been "blown out of the water" is simply not correct and is bordering on childish.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 10:46:31 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 26, 2018, 12:45:22 amI don't mind phrasing it differently than "blown out of the water" if that phrasing is bothersome. The problem is that we're taught from a young age that we matter and that by extension our opinions do too. What they often neglect to teach is that an opinion is only worth as much as the reasoning it's built upon. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that does not make all opinions equally valid or valuable. In this thread we see that one side is heavily argued from an emotional perspective, with a distinct lack of sources that quantify anything. It should be said that's unsurprising, as the various agencies have been attempting to argue something similar and have also been unable quantify their statements to a very relevant degree. Meanwhile, how mass surveillance isn't very effective or desirable has been argued both from an emotional perspective and through various references and sources. Ultimately the value of a position depends on the evidence that's brought forward to support it and there seems to be a huge divide visible in that regard.I think everyone here would love to see how mass surveillance makes a massive difference in how safe we are in our day to day lives and how it doesn't threaten our civil liberties in the slightest, but neither seem to be the case. A lot of evidence of the opposite has been brought forward. I'm ready to go anywhere the evidence takes us and assume most others are too. I'd love to be wowed by solid evidence that's contrary to my position and learn a thing or two in the process.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 26, 2018, 11:46:43 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on September 26, 2018, 10:46:31 pmIt's not the phrasing that bothers me, it's your intent behind it.At the end of the day, I've said my piece and it's more than just opinion based on some reports in the media. It's based on first-hand experience. Forgive me if I don't go into details or provide sources, I'm not about to jeapordise protected information to "win" an argument on a public internet forum (not that I care that much about winning arguments).I get they you and the majority of the public want to see "proof" but in some cases, it cannot be done to protect methodology etc... Secrets are kept secret for a reason and the general population simply doesn't need to know. Does it mean what goes on behind closed doors is sinister or malicious in nature? Absolutely not.Anyway, you have your opinion and I have mine. As long as we both sleep well at night, it really doesn't matter.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 12:28:11 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 26, 2018, 11:46:43 pmNo details or sources means there's no argument to be made. As has been discussed before, keeping specific and operational matters secret for a little while can be required but the systemic veil of darkness goes much further than that. If anyone has been going dark it's the agencies themselves. Recent history shows their unwillingness to share anything has mostly been used to placate the public. There's absolutely no reason these agencies cannot provide evidence of any overall effectiveness in even the broadest sense. The attempts they've mounted to do so failed miserably, which rather alarmingly raises the distinct possibility that there might be none.The agencies discussed have had a lot of leeway and various leaks have shown they've abused the trust we placed in them substantially. Simply put, they've blown it. Sinister things have been going on beyond closed doors and we have solid evidence to prove it. If you want special rights that potentially threaten the civil liberties our society is built upon, handwaving is not enough. You'll need to both prove that the hefty price society pays is worth it and that you can be trusted with the information and liberties we trust you with. Neither is happening at the moment. Almost the exact opposite is happening. Everyone consistently forgets it, but these governments and agencies are working for us and are accountable to us. The public not only has a right to know, it needs to know. Otherwise it might be best to just pull the plug and forget about the whole thing.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 05:50:24 am
content: Just because there are no specific details (to your satisfaction) doesn't invalidate the argument at all, if you choose to ignore someone's experiences, that's on you. Looks like we'll never agree and that's completely fine. As I said, it doesn't invalidate what I've been saying, nor will it prevent the sun from rising tomorrow.Just like the "Climate Change" argument, most people are either on one side or another and no amount of convincing will sway them to change sides.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 06:25:22 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 27, 2018, 05:50:24 amThe problem is that what you're essentially saying is this: "I have secret information, which I cannot share, which gives me (or others) the right to have access to your secret information, whether you like it or not". Both hypocritical - and illegal, as well as immoral IMO.Government agencies in a democracy, no matter how special they think they are, require the consent of the governed. The problem is that time and time again, the intelligence agencies have shown that they illegally operate outside of what they have been given consent to do. This allows for the abuse by those in power to use these government agencies as operatives against political opponents and to wage illegal and unapproved covert wars.It is only due to the fact that the majority of the public is uniformed and unaware of the extent that their basic rights are being violated (or too zonked out with TV and junk food to care), that these things are allowed to continue to happen.So you can continue to think that your secret information gives you the right to violate others rights, but the informed know the truth. After all, throughout history, "secret police" have always found ways to justify their actions to themselves.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 07:03:35 am
content: mtdoc,If I could provide a list of instances where the plans of a terror suspect have been stopped mere days before an attack happened or the number of times people involved in child sex rings have been arrested and abuse of victims have been prevented, I'm pretty sure you or any normal person would have been supportive.If you think that employees within Police and Intelligence organisations just sit there at a terminal, looking up random people willy-nilly for their own pleasure, then you are even more out-of-touch than those who know nothing about this kind of thing at all. Sure, there have been cases where some individuals have stepped outside the boundaries and have in some cases even acted corruptly in a serious way, but those cases are few and far between. The higher the level of access you have, the more you are watched and the more your accesses are scrutinised, and not just scrutinised by direct supervisors working for the same organisation, but external agencies whose job it is to go after people who abuse their authority. Let me tell you, those organisations who "Police the Police" are ruthless and would sooner book their own mother, than let a corrupt person off the hook. Every time someone corrupt gets caught, the level of scrutiny goes up and more checks are put into place (and rightly so).Also, to even insinuate that I have illegally violated anyone's privacy or acted immorally is not only insulting and inaccurate, but is bordering on a personal attack and that's just not acceptable. I haven't quoted you in my reply on purpose, to give you the opportunity to re-consider your words and make an amendment.As I have previously pointed out, this is one of those arguments where no one wins, the thread ends up getting locked and everyone is left with their original stance. That is all I'll say on the matter.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 07:24:57 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 27, 2018, 07:03:35 amIf any such things occurred because ofmass surveillancethe the intelligence agencies would be crowing about it. You are creating a straw man. There has never been any credible evidence that mass surveillance is effective. In fact several examinations of the NSAs illegal mass surveillance efforts have shown that it isn't. But even if it was, the question isis it worth the cost in loss of the essential human right to privacy?That deserves public debate but government has been doing its best to avoid that. There is a cost to freedom and maintenance of human dignity. After all the Stazi could have made the same such claim that their methods prevented terrorist and child sex rings. Does that mean it's justified?And BTW, individuals for whom there is evidence that surveillance is justified have always been fair game for traditional targeted police and intelligence agency surveillance provided there isproper judicial oversight. No one here is disputing that.QuoteAnother straw man. I have never said such a thing.QuoteIt should be completely obvious to anyone reading my posts that I was referring to the general claim that illegal mass surveillance is justified by the argument "I have information that if you only knew, would justify mass surveillance". If you are taking that personally then it is only to the extent that you have claimed that for yourself. Here is your earlier statement:Quote from: HalcyonQuoteQuote away. Just don't take my quotes out of context

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 07:27:30 am
content: Enough of this, thread locked. Everyone is entitled to their opinions on the matter, but this is just turning into an argument.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2018, 07:32:18 am
content: This thread got too personal, I agree with the lock.