Police state mass surveillance
There's always another good...excuse.
28 posts • joined 15 Jun 2018
"malicious extensions appear to have been designed to operate unobtrusively and generate ad revenue by redirecting the victim's browser to a series of host sites – almost all hosted on AWS..."
Based on my experience, AWS is a favorite hiding place of all manner of evil doers these days. Maybe it's a little too easy to get an account and Amazon is way too lax in policing their users.
Or, maybe that's just the way it is...we are all corporate sheep waiting our turn to be fleeced.
My understanding is there is a way to access iphone storage and the security chip by literally dissecting the phone bit by bit then kind of reassembling it, and using very high means and a lot ot time to read or manipulate the security features and storage. The point being, cracking it by some teenage thief aint' gonna' happen. Meanwhile an adversary with literally unlimited resources is going to find the cost/reward ratio punitive. (I would guess Apple engineers could modify the security and storage chips tamper proof making it more difficult if not impossible to crack.)
These "no expectation of privacy" rants and manifestos are all over the internet in regards RING. I assume it's organized. Many sound like the same PR hack writing them.
Here's the truth: In America, the citizenry DOES have a Constitutional right to Privacy as confirmed by the Supreme Court at various times in various ways. Note there are even several federal privacy laws and even a fourth amendment regarding search and seizure.
In short, you DO have the right to be let alone from GOVERNMENT intrusion.No one can take that away from you. It cannot be waived by someone else checking a box. Even, a Ring cam.
YES, YOU DO have a right to privacy!
Clearly, FBI is following the lead of the PRC and we can be assured it will be used, abused, spindled, folded and mutilated as all other police data bases.
Essentially, every adult in the USA is being forced to submit to booking and monitoring like a common criminal. It's not right, but it is what it is.
I want my face back!
I have an ancient stand alone copy of Photoshop that does what I need to do without selling my soul to rentier capitalists. I found a hack that keeps it from phoning home all the time.
Did Adobe really lose the account data, or sell it on the sly? With Adobe nobody knows. They are about as trustworthy as Mr. Z and FB.
She does seem to manage IBM for financial appearance rather than substantive product. Then one day she may simply say, 'I quit', and walk off stage with a few hundred million bucks. Nice work if you can get it. The best part is no accountability for failure. That's America these days.
I've tried to make Linux my everyday OS a few times but it always becomes a dead end deal, with the vague fix seeming to be...reinstall everything. Hmmmmm.
Anyway, I understand Red Hat creates FREE software, but charges money to make it work for you. A service. Devious if you think about it. And from my experience likely to generate quite a bit of profit.
I hope it works out for everyone concerned.
I think that will depend on how Linux works.
The former Bill of Rights has been mostly negated in the last two hundred years. Government has grown in power leaving much less for us.
I would say the spirit of the Fifth Amendment protects revelation of passwords, but the onslaught of caustic court decisions and new laws go against protection of individual rights.
Police aren't going to stop the assault on individual rights until the US goes full UK and makes it flat illegal to conceal a password from the police.
Only then we will be secure from unwarranted intrusions altogether, because the right against self-incrimination, and all the rest, will be gone.
They will because they can and there is nothing and no one to stop them.
People pay real money to have their stuff in the cloud supposedly immune from earthly disaster.
But, no matter how much money they pay, there are still disasters but no consequence for those providing the failed service. True, corporate protocol demands somebody in PR take five minutes to prepare an apology text (vetted by the lawyers, example below). That's it.
Major disaster response:
"We are SO sorry. We are SO sorry. We are SO sorry."
(note to self: keep a local backup no matter what they say)
My ISP doesn't support IPV6. Instead IPV6 connections are routed through some kind of DNS conversion tables which SLOWS DOWN connections hugely.
It's only been the last few years that any website in the world could do a simple IPV6 lookup. Try it sometime.
And, I admit, the naming system is quite confusing to me.
Firewalling IPV6 is hard and apps few and far between. It's exceptionally hard to filter OUTBOUND Ipv6. (To it's credit, the MS windows firewall does a pretty job at it.)
However, in general IPV6 spam and crooks can blast right through today's router and firewall apps.
Frankly my cyber life is better off without IPV6. Seems it's flawed solution for a non-problem, for most people and even tech coprs.
I think negotiations for the people should start with all electronic data is tangible property, as if it was inside a file cabinet in your home, and thus subject to all Constitutional protections.
The fact of the matter is various laws like the Patriot Act and court decisions, like this one, too, have whittled down the Bill of Rights to a hollow and weak shell of it's former self.
This ruling is not a victory in the sense it now appears cell records of less than six days are NOT subject to the 4th amendment at all according to this ruling. Plenty of room for the boys in blue to game. And, they may still get all historical data, because it still exists, so long as it's not used as evidence in a trial.
I haven't read one response from the police industry complaining about this decision. That's a very bad sign too. It suggests they have work arounds already in place.
I read a couple reviews that suggesting the ruling ***ONLY*** applies to ***seven days or more*** of cell data thus leaving all else wide open and now approved by the Supreme Court because....that's what they ruled. For example:
"...law-enforcement officials might sometimes still be able to obtain cell-site location records without a warrant – for example, to deal with emergencies such as “bomb threats, active shootings, and child abductions.” .... also left open the possibility that law-enforcement officials might not need a warrant to obtain cell-site location records for a shorter period of time than the seven days at issue in Carpenter’s case – which might allow them to get information about where someone was on the day of a crime, for example."
My reading is: Cell records are wide open and now court approved for anything less than a seven day time span.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020