Lawful for cops to hack into your computer/phone

Strider590

Mr_Toad wrote: »

It always amazes me that people think the government, or anyone else, is interested in their ordinary little lives, beyond a few targeted adverts, which are easily blocked.

They have enough trouble catching real criminals without wasting resources tracking the rest of us.

Why don't you get rid of your mobile so they don't know where you are while you're at it?

And don't forget the tin foil hat :rotfl:

No, your just looking at the surface of it all. The smoke screen covering what's really going on.

They don't have the resources OR the inclination to watch what the average Joe is doing, it's NOT about snooping.

It's about controlling what we can and cannot see, controlling how we see the world outside UK borders, controlling how we spend money, controlling our lives, all without us realising it.

No single person is that important, but as a whole we have the power to shut down corporations, to overthrow governments, to change the world. BUT what we need to link us all together is communication and the ability to communicate FACTs, rather than the nonsense we're fed by the media.

DigForVictory

I quietly refuse to believe any commercial encryption program is without at least one back door. A combination of coder convenience, patriotism & hard cash tends to create a perfect niche somehow.

Besides, I am one molecule in the universe. To read my emails, they'll need a darn good reason & quite a lot of time. So I'll happily use a VPN to tell the advertisers to toddle off, but wave & smile to any passing law enforcement.

Mr_Toad

Strider590 wrote: »

No, your just looking at the surface of it all. The smoke screen covering what's really going on.

No, it's not that. I just don't care enough to peer into the smoke as it has little impact on my life.

Strider590

DigForVictory wrote: »

I quietly refuse to believe any commercial encryption program is without at least one back door. A combination of coder convenience, patriotism & hard cash tends to create a perfect niche somehow.
.

And where these exploits exist, the hacking community is on hand to expose them. Everyone demonises them for what they do, but would you rather it was some kid hacking for a laugh, trying to expose security flaws in (for example) your online banking system OR some criminal gang doing it to take you to the cleaners?

I've been there myself, I noticed a major security flaw in the works IT system, I then got into A LOT of trouble for wasting time when I should be working, the fact I noticed the flaw WHILST doing my job and was merely more observant than other people, was conveniently ignored.

The fact is, back doors and exploits WILL get noticed and WILL either get shutdown OR exposed publicly by the people that find them. For as much of a thankless job as it may be.

enfield_freddy

almillar

^ what he said.

tronator

DigForVictory wrote: »

I quietly refuse to believe any commercial encryption program is without at least one back door. A combination of coder convenience, patriotism & hard cash tends to create a perfect niche somehow.

That's why I don't trust and don't use commercial encryption programs. Lot of open source software available. I use ecryptfs, encfs and GnuPG. And no Windows of course

I'm amazed how many people are saying, "if you don't have to hide anything..." or "they're not interested in my life" and so on. So let's install cameras in every room of our houses...

Lumstorm

DigForVictory wrote: »

I quietly refuse to believe any commercial encryption program is without at least one back door.

That is why it is best to use open source solutions as suggested by tronator you have many eyes on the code so flaws are quickly made public and fixed and back doors can't be put in as they would be seen. Compared to Windows which source is only seen by a select few at Microsoft and they have a commercial interest in hiding any flaws.

Stuxnet which gjchester mentions was a virus created by the US and Israeli governments to attack Irans nuclear program in an act of what the US would call digital terrorism if any other country created it. So not really a flaw but a deliberate attack

gjchester

Lumstorm wrote: »

Stuxnet which gjchester mentions was a virus

You missed my point, It wasn't about what Stuxnet was it was how it was deployed.

Stuxnet was reported as using four Zero Day exploits. That's four exploits discovered and used by the writers. The writers (who may well be state sponsored) didn't go public with them, they used them for their own ends.

Let me give you another example, Heartbleed. That was open source, and reviewed by many people, but yet took two years to be flagged up in public. Its alleged the NSA may have known and exploited it but we'll never really know if that is true, but anyone could have been exploiting that and not saying anything, obviously once the flaw is public it will be patched and for a criminal element that may be a loss of business..

Any open source code may be reviewed for flaws, some people will want to make the flaws public and fix them, others may well see the flaws, keep quiet and exploit them for their own ends.

Big_Graeme

Strider590 wrote: »

No, your just looking at the surface of it all. The smoke screen covering what's really going on.

They don't have the resources OR the inclination to watch what the average Joe is doing, it's NOT about snooping.

It's about controlling what we can and cannot see, controlling how we see the world outside UK borders, controlling how we spend money, controlling our lives, all without us realising it.

No single person is that important, but as a whole we have the power to shut down corporations, to overthrow governments, to change the world. BUT what we need to link us all together is communication and the ability to communicate FACTs, rather than the nonsense we're fed by the media.