Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

Are you guys really sure it's "Big Brother" we need to worry about?
http://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-style/5- ... ?a=viewall

[Vrede too]

Better than Google, if that case can be made, ain't saying much.

And you guys worry about NSA

There's an important difference: Clear Channel isn't going to use your data to arrest or torture you when the data raises vague suspicions....

[Vrede too]

Recap: What We’ve Learned About Surveillance of Black Lives Matter

How the FBI Polices Dissent and Why It Matters in the Encryption Debate

The Very Existence of the NSA Is Illegal

The Washington Post reported last week that the National Security Agency soon would begin providing local law enforcement with data on American citizens intercepted without probable cause and without a warrant. This data has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. It apparently will be used mostly in drug cases, although it could conceivably be used against any American for any reason....

The ACLU said:

Domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes. And we don’t have to guess who’s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It’ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra “special” attention.

Until recently, according to the New York Times, NSA analysts “filtered” the information before providing it to other governmental entities. The NSA would mask the names and any irrelevant information about innocent Americans before passing the information to the CIA, the FBI, or the Department of Homeland Security. Those protections no longer exist.

What kind of information are we talking about here? You name it. The NSA can give it to the FBI, the local cops, or whomever else they want. Have you called an abortion provider? A psychiatrist? Do you have a secret boyfriend or girlfriend? Have you texted your weed connection? Nothing will be secret. And remember, nobody has a warrant for anything....

Placed in this thread because of the persecution the "premature anti-fascists" faced back home:

Delmer Berg, Last of American Volunteers in Spanish Civil War, Dies at 100

RIP.

[O Really]

"...although it could conceivably be used against any American for any reason...."
"Conceivably" - a term having the same meaning and weight as "certainly" in the fear culture.

[Vrede too]

Did you not read the first two links?

[O Really]

Did you not read the first two links?

I did, but it seems the FBI's actions, while egregious at first glance, are probably justified because conceivably evil people could infiltrate otherwise worthwhile groups and use them for their nefarious purposes. I'll bet they can even come up with a small parade of horribles of that happening.

[Vrede too]

I'll bet there are more "conceivably evil people" among lawyers. Does that justify spying on all of you?

[O Really]

I'll bet there are more "conceivably evil people" among lawyers. Does that justify spying on all of you?

Maybe. If one is inclined to find the possibility - or even existence - of aberrations, outliers, and gung-ho hotheads to be the determining factor in how the profession is policed, then of course you'd have to watch us all. In fact, it's conceivable that a lawyer could misuse his/her access to personal information through their Lexis/Nexis subscription to stalk his/her ex-spouse's new love. It's conceivable that an evil eager-beaver prosecutor could alter or misapply evidence to railroad innocent victims. It's happened, right? So some would indeed probably argue that we should not have access to Lexis/Nexis and prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to collect evidence.

[Vrede too]

Anti-Encryption Bill from Senators Burr (R-NC) and Feinstein (D-CA) Would Be Disastrous for Cybersecurity, Tech Economy

The Senate’s Draft Encryption Bill Is ‘Ludicrous, Dangerous, Technically Illiterate’

Tell Congress: Stop the dangerous new anti-encryption bill.

[O Really]

From the article...

"Considering that the White House reportedly won’t endorse this bill, the Senate Majority Leader seems uninterested in moving it, the House of Representatives would never pass anything like it, and the Internet community will oppose it with everything it’s got, this bill might as well be named the DOA Act, because it is certainly dead-on-arrival as currently written."

(yawn)

One could consider it a sign of progress, however, when a right-wing dimbulb like Burr is willing to co-sponsor any bill with Feinstein.

[Vrede too]

She's been very hawkish on the national security state.

I'm not so optimistic about DOA. A few tweaks here and there or elements incorporated into a new bill and there could be a fight on. It's not like Burr, now, and Feinstein are lightweights.

[O Really]

So it wasn't the Israelis who got into the iphone for the FBI, it was a gray-hat hacker ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

[rstrong]

Techdirt: Apparently Hacking Syed Farook's iPhone Accomplished Nothing (Other Than Making Everyone Less Safe)

This should hardly comes as a surprise but reports are surfacing saying that after hacking into Syed Farook's work iPhone, that was subject to so much attention, the FBI has found absolutely nothing of interest:
[...]
Remember, this was the same iPhone that the DOJ and the FBI said was critical in their investigation. This is the same iPhone that the San Bernardino District Attorney, Michael Ramos, insisted could be hiding evidence of a "dormant cyber pathogen" destined to destroy San Bernardino County's computer network.

[O Really]

But it might have had worthwhile info, right? There wasn't anything in Al Capones cave, either, but why not spend a bunch of time and money looking?
""dormant cyber pathogen" destined to destroy San Bernardino County's computer network might be a bit over-dramatic, but seriously, don't you think they should have looked?

[rstrong]

But it might have had worthwhile info, right? There wasn't anything in Al Capones cave, either, but why not spend a bunch of time and money looking?
""dormant cyber pathogen" destined to destroy San Bernardino County's computer network might be a bit over-dramatic, but seriously, don't you think they should have looked?

Sure, they should have looked if possible. That's not the point. (Or at least not the only point to consider.)

To look at one criminal's phone (and AFTER the criminal is caught/dead yet), they shouldn't be opening up everyone else's phones to all the other criminals. Whether or not that's what they intended, that's what their demands meant.

BTW, even the FBI says that the method used to crack the phone doesn't work in newer iPhones. But if they got their way, newer iPhones would be vulnerable too. And with an official back door known to all, far more vulnerable than Farook's phone turned out to be.

Also, if a phone contains a "dormant cyber pathogen" destined to destroy San Bernardino County's computer network, doesn't that mean that you *don't* want to unlock it?

[O Really]

Speaking of phone security, do you know anything about Airwatch Agent? Our firm started requiring installation/use of the app for any mobile that can access the network. Installation was ultimately successful, but not without hitches, and apparently it can control everything about your phone including bricking and wiping it from afar. Do I need to be concerned about accidental bricking or other glitches?

[rstrong]

Speaking of phone security, do you know anything about Airwatch Agent? Our firm started requiring installation/use of the app for any mobile that can access the network. Installation was ultimately successful, but not without hitches, and apparently it can control everything about your phone including bricking and wiping it from afar. Do I need to be concerned about accidental bricking or other glitches?

My only experience with that sort of thing has been years ago with Blackberries. Work and personal data could be kept firewalled, and the email administrator could wipe the work data on a phone while leaving the personal data intact. I was the administrator. The system didn't present significant privacy issues.

If not the administrator - thus having no full understanding let alone control over what privacy issues the software might have - I wouldn't allow something like AirWatch on my personal phone. There could be anything from GPS tracking to reading my non-work email accounts, SMS messages and social media, to monitoring my use of non-work related apps. If the company required me to have phone access to their network, they'd have an obligation to provide that phone. I'd still use my own for personal use, and that would be the safest solution of all for everyone.

[O Really]

That's interesting. I don't know everybody in the firm, of course, but nobody I do know has ever carried two phones. When Blackberries were new in 2003ish or so the firm bought a few to "experiment" but ever since "everyone" has had a smartphone we've just gotten phone allowances. First we had to get Blackberries because Enterprise didn't support other stuff. For a long time now, any phone is fine. We still get a phone allowance, but no real requirement to access the firm network; however, nobody would try to do their job without having such access.

The IT department has been working on boosting security for some time in various ways, so Airwatch isn't something all that surprising. Our administrator says they're not interested in where we go, who we call or get calls from, and they can't see personal email, pics, etc. They can see what other apps are installed. He says there are different levels of control/monitoring they could implement and what they use for personal phones is not the same as what they might do for firm-owned phones. I've been with the firm for a long time, have known the system administrator personally for a long time, and have no reason to believe they're up to anything they're not telling us. But the capabilities of Airwatch are pretty scary if you look at it.

[rstrong]

I've been with the firm for a long time, have known the system administrator personally for a long time, and have no reason to believe they're up to anything they're not telling us.

The problem is that it isn't just the system administrator that you need to trust with your personal data. It's any future system administrator. And possible future outsourced IT. And management. And future management.

It's not just their intentions, it's their security practices. A hack could also be at AirWatch, an IT company or any remote desktop app or other software the IT folks or managers use. It may take one person to open a spreadsheet or PDF that they shouldn't. The big Target hack a couple years ago was at different company that maintained their heating and air conditioning. Which had access to the Target networks to monitor that heating and air conditioning.

If your company does anything wrong, or is accused of doing something wrong, or just wants to get a government security clearance, government agencies many demand that data. Not that you don't trust their intentions, but they routinely leak data even the most sensitive data on a massive scale.

If the company goes bankrupt, the data is an asset that creditors can demand.

[Vrede too]

Plus, how many system administrators does it take currently using AirWatch before the odds that one is abusing it approach 100%?

How often have we heard, "He seemed like such a nice guy . . . "?