Snowden on WikiLeaks Year Zero: Evidence US govt pays to keep 'software unsafe'

[Ryujin2003]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

and did i say anything about taking away your right?

No, I'm letti g you know that I accept that you have a difference in view on this topic, and that I do not feel the need to bicker to make my point. We disagree, and let's leave it at that.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Yes, certain policies and stuff of course, but matters of intelligence, no. Totally disagree.

Road to happiness:

 

1) Remove accountability for your actions in intelligence matters because [commies] [terrorism] [Putin] [China] [insert your own]

2) Make everything you do a matter of intelligence

3) Profit!

[Ryujin2003]

9 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Road to happiness:

 

1) Remove accountability for your actions in intelligence matters because [commies] [terrorism] [Putin] [China] [insert your own]

2) Make everything you do a matter of intelligence

3) Profit!

Literally a vety dumb and extreme interpretation. Great way to boost your self extreme. Take something someone says completely out of context to an extreme where you feel superior. I guess that's a win for you.

[Delicieuxz]

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Literally a vety dumb and extreme interpretation. Great way to boost your self extreme. Take something someone says completely out of context to an extreme where you feel superior. I guess that's a win for you.

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently you can't get past calling names and discussing unknown strangers instead of ideas.

 

Your point was that some intelligence activities, to be effective, need to be secret. My point is that, once something can't be known, it can't be judged, and therefore those involved in "intelligence matters" become accountable only to themselves. A risky thing to do, and a strange one for a democracy.

 

Now go back to play amateur internet psychologist if you want.

[OmicronNeon]

On 3/8/2017 at 3:50 AM, yathis said:

There are countless things our government does that legally they are not allowed to. There was something similar on tv tonight, how the government can hack into everyday items, then have it seem like Russia is at fault.

This is the very reason why I've come to unplug whatever it is that I'm not using at the time that could listen in on me. 

Also, cover your webcams...all of them.

[ObscureMammal]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

These guys are just scaremongering and make claims without providing any proof. They claim CIA hacked the DNC and made it look like Russia, that's some BS. They are missing the big picture, the CIA "lost control" of the tools and left these vulnerabilities open and now other parties can take advantage of them.

 

Some people are freaking out about the smart TV's listening to you but are completely fine with owning an amazon echo or smart phone, and they ARE always listening.

You are more likely to be the victim of phishing or a malicious ad by not using an adblock than a target.

 

This is a helpful article to understand whats going on: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/10/wikileaks-cia-cache-fool-me-once/

 

Edit: This is another good article on the subject: https://theintercept.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-files-show-the-cia-repurposing-foreign-hacking-code-to-save-time-not-to-frame-russia/

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, ObscureMammal said:

These guys are just scaremongering and make claims without providing any proof. They claim CIA hacked the DNC and made it look like Russia, that's some BS. They are missing the big picture, the CIA "lost control" of the tools and left these vulnerabilities open and now other parties can take advantage of them.

 

 

The two interviewees are former NSA and intelligence officers, so they're speaking from knowledge.

 

That "lost control" of those hacking tools is the leak that was delivered to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks hasn't published those tools, and so while they have escaped from the CIA, they only escaped from the CIA to be delivered to WikiLeaks - they aren't out in the open.

[Centurius]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

The two interviewees are former NSA and intelligence officers, so they're speaking from knowledge.

 

That "lost control" of those hacking tools is the leak that was delivered to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks hasn't published those tools, and so while they have escaped from the CIA, they only escaped from the CIA to be delivered to WikiLeaks - they aren't out in the open.

Appeal to authority rarely holds true when subjected to the proper scrutiny.

 

One of the former contractors who had the tools informed Wikileaks about them. What others may have done with them is very much unknown and it cannot be ruled out that they are in the hands of criminal organizations. 

[ObscureMammal]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

The two interviewees are former NSA and intelligence officers, so they're speaking from knowledge.

 

That "lost control" of those hacking tools is the leak that was delivered to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks hasn't published those tools, and so while they have escaped from the CIA, they only escaped from the CIA to be delivered to WikiLeaks - they aren't out in the open.

I know who they are, my point still stands.

 

You are very naive to think Wikileaks is the only one to have this information.

[Delicieuxz]

1 minute ago, Centurius said:

Appeal to authority rarely holds true when subjected to the proper scrutiny.

It's not really an appeal to authority. The people are being asked, as ones who might know, 'does the CIA possess this kind of capability', and they one responds along the lines of 'I can't mention specifics, but I think that the actual capabilities are even greater than you now imagine they could be'.

 

Also, it's well established that the hacking and spying capabilities Hannity asks them about are realistic capabilities, possesses by people - and so undoubtedly also possessed by the CIA. His question was more for confirmation from intelligence sources, even though the answer is obviously to the affirmative.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

It's not really an appeal to authority. The people are being asked, as ones who might know, 'does the CIA possess this kind of capability', and they one responds along the lines of 'I can't mention specifics, but I think that the actual capabilities are even greater than you now imagine they could be'.

 

Also, it's well established that the hacking and spying capabilities Hannity asks them about are realistic capabilities, possesses by people - and so undoubtedly also possessed by the CIA. His question was more for confirmation from intelligence sources, even though the answer is obviously to the affirmative.

False; that IS an appeal to authority; that is an omission of detail and being vague, and should be criticized as such. I do not put so much faith on these so called "intelligence sources", because doing so would obstruct my view of the bigger picture. It is like the claims made by he-who-shall-not-be-named here on the LTT forums; a claim may be true, but the hearsay allegations mean nothing at all.

[Ryujin2003]

2 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently you can't get past calling names and discussing unknown strangers instead of ideas.

 

Your point was that some intelligence activities, to be effective, need to be secret. My point is that, once something can't be known, it can't be judged, and therefore those involved in "intelligence matters" become accountable only to themselves. A risky thing to do, and a strange one for a democracy.

 

Now go back to play amateur internet psychologist if you want.

Sorry if you took offense, but I wasn't trying to get into the 12 year old name calling. If your point was to highlight that it cannot have oversight if it isn't publicly visible, then you could have just led with that instead of the standard meme route. Just a thought.

 

Believe it or not, but things that are "secret" can have internal oversight control measures. Certain people are appointed to conduct reviews and investigations. These are done in an unbiased way because the individuals that are appointed are supposed to be disconnected from these programs. For example, you have an intelligence agency that conducts various activities. The person who is in the oversight position is aware of the rules and regulations, but doesn't participate in any way, shape, or form, with said agency. When you have issues such as what this "whistleblower" highlighted, the person(s) who were supposed to be in charge of ensuring the rules were followed should be hung out to dry.

 

I'm not a fan of whistleblowers, because I believe many of them have their own selfish goals, and often times, in when it comes to intelligence issues, they jump straight to the "whistleblowing" in a public manner for fame, glory, or whatever other reason they have, instead of actually going through the official channels to report things. Believe it or not, but these official channels do exist, and they actually work when followed appropriately.

 

So, yes, there can be oversight, controls, and other implementations to prevent and deter these issues. But why do these things happen? Well, the obvious redirect is why did Hillary get away with the private server? It didn't magically appear, someone had to physically set it up. I'm sure Grandma Hillary doesn't know WTF a Cat5E cable is, so I doubt it was specifically her. But my point is, that these things happen, no one is publicly held accountable. Eventually the Media and the citizens "forget" about it, and move on....

 

So no, I don't think everything needs to be publicly visible. But when things do become visible, then I 100% believe those accountable should be identified let the law do it's thing. That includes those who failed to properly oversee controls and those who do illegal "whistleblowing".

 

Keypoint: Those in charge of overseeing the legality of intelligence activities cannot be part of the agencies, since this would automatically be a conflict of interest. There are rules set up to control this stuff. If things went wrong, then someone abused their position, or something else happened along the way. That is why the government has people written into specific positions with responsibilities listed. That way its black and white who and what is messed up.

 

 

 

 

[yathis]

I am tempted to use old cell phones, but most are analog or cdma. Maybe there is a way to take out the GPS on the phone.

Even the traffic signs that tell you how long it is of a drive to the airport track your phone.