Re: What a lie!
Thanks for the feedback. We've revised the article - take a look.
Figures published this month suggest fewer Americans are using encryption to secure their communications – but if you look into the detail, the opposite is probably closer to reality. The latest Wiretap Report from the US courts system – which counts up the number of requests from investigators to spy on people's chatter in …
This post has been deleted by its author
Think it's quite valid actually and a good way of circumventing surveillance by using a common configuration and a fingerprint which would go unnoticed as unique to evade.
Send an email from any US friendly nation with the header 'Hi dad pic of the home made birthday card the kids are sending you.
Embed your 'White house down or Olympus has fallen plans' in the jpeg image and would it get through, I think every time the metadata and the email would not get flagged as supicious.
Anonimity by obscurity.
This post has been deleted by its author
"If anything, this suggests encrypted communications is working – federal and state investigators who need warrants to spy on people are giving up on crypto-secured natter. It's not worth the time."
If encrypted communication is used by criminals and terrorists in performing their evil deeds, then surely they should be spending more time spying on people who use encryption. Then again, it may be that encryption is mostly used by people who don't want the Feds listening in on confidential business discussions or 'romantic' conversations.
"If encrypted communication is used by criminals and terrorists in performing their evil deeds, then surely they should be spending more time spying on people who use encryption."
Sure, but that doesn't contradict anything the article said. Not bothering to intercept encrypted communications because you won't be able to do anything with them doesn't mean you give up and ignore a person of interest entirely, it simply means that you focus your efforts in areas that have potential to actually get results.
When Theresa introduced Snoopers Charter in the UK, I immediately pointed out that Russia and China would use this as political cover for their versions of Snoopers.
Sure enough Putin has done that and it has all the same 'extra-territoriality' and 'strip-encryption' clauses in it too.
Putin is very predictable, and this situation is very predictable.
Putin will pay ISPs for the data. So at first his FSB will pull data for Russians in Russia, and the Russian ISPs they'll be cool with that, they have legal coverage and get rewarded for it. It's like a revenue stream, if anything they want to sell more data and get more revenue.
But Putin will expand his horizons outside of Russia, just as GCHQ has been using UK companies to spy on friends and foes around the world, so he'll do the same.
There are lots of companies in the UK and Russia, some more Russian, some more British, but it won't matter. Both have cover from Theresa and Putins Snoopers Charters and both see their customers private data as a revenue stream.
So Putin will likely go after the data of Russians in Britain first, e.g. the Oligarchs in London, as a means of getting companies use to the process of selling their data. And eventually his FSB boys will be regularly slurping down data on Britains in Britain.
Now we need to protect ourselves from this, and that means strong end to end encryption. As I see it there is one obstacle to this, and she's the front running for taking power without the people voting for her as PM.
A Prime Minister is never elected as Prime Minister and yet every time a conversation comes up like this somebody trots out about the 'unelected Prime Minister' line. All the candidates are elected MPs eligible to stand for the leadership of the ruling party and therefore become Prime Minister. End of.
"A Prime Minister is never elected as Prime Minister "
Yes they are, we always know who will be PM when we vote for a party, they're ALWAYS offered up as a leader PRIOR to the election.
This little game of musical chairs going on now in the Conservative party gets around the norm, it does not make it right or proper or democratic.
Yes they are, we always know who will be PM when we vote for a party,
We don't get the option of voting for a party. Only an individual. Some of those individuals may be party drones, others may think for themselves, others again might be complete loose cannons.
"As I see it there is one obstacle to this, and she's the front running for taking power without the people voting for her as PM."
If you are a Brit and allowed to vote, can I suggest that you learn a little about who and what you are voting for before the next elections? An educated electorate is the only way to change things, so if we can start with you maybe next time....
So, with more and more governments looking to enable these kind of snooper's charter, it is in our best interests to ensure that our data is protected personally, without having to rely on good intentions by other organisations or governments.
VPN's, encryption, TOR etc - the more people care about their data, the more they will turn to the options available for them.
In the UK, that will essentially mean a warrant is needed to access your encrypted data, which I'm fine with - if the police etc can convince a judge of the need to access my data, i'll provide the keys - otherwise i'll be doing whatever I need to, to ensure that my data is obfuscated.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021