Earlier quoted context omitted.
He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of associ…
Facts, stats and even graphs can all be used to push a narrative. Context is pretty key. To my eyes, Wikileaks seems to be cherrypicking and giving passes to others. The timing of the leaks has been nothing short of convenient, which makes me suspicious. That's my opinion, though. I have nothing to back it up and I wouldn't even try to prove it. But, hey, we're speculating here.
CIA malware and hacking tools
691–700 of 1001 posts
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#692It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…
He very clearly explained his motives for not doing so in the AMA, and he gave an alternate POL by reading from the blockchain. This whole narrative of Wikileaks not being neutral is a very weird story, because they've never published anything that wasn't verified to be true. Since that's something they can't be attacked on, it seems that the strategy for discrediting Wikileaks has now become to accuse them of associ…
The parties and their surrogates attempt to taint sources as biased and by proxy all content from the source invalid.
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#693It's interesting to note that Julian Assange didn't demonstrate control of the wikileaks private key during his Reddit AMA 1 month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5n58sm/i_am_julian_as... Considering the political situation unfolding in the US and who this leak weakens, there is some evidence that wikileaks is not in the hands of a neutral party. There is clear motive right now for undermining the CIA. Th…
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#694Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it bad? Does anyone expect spies not to have spy tools? Espionage is their job, after all.
Maybe GP is starting to finally see the CIA how the rest of the world has seen them for say, oh the last 60 years or so.
Put it this way, I have a Samsung TV and plan to do absolutely nothing about it. If I want something to be really private i discuss it outdoors or write it down by hand on paper. I'm kind of baffled about eh public and the media's inability to distinguish between the ability to carry out espionage and the targets against which it is deployed.
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am bemused by the naivete that they would care about legal recourse and not just blackbag you and Gitmo2.0 your posteriors if they felt like it.
That's difficult when a large company like Google or Microsoft use the tools as part of their development process to make their software more secure. These are organizations with a very large megaphone if the CIA did that to their employees.
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#696- Smart TV turned into listening devices with fake off mode? - Intercepting audio/texts before encryption by Signal, Whisper, WhatsApp etc. - Dozens of O-day attacks again Andriod and iPhone. Pretty powerful stuff.
The iOS attack breakdown lists a combination of vulnerabilities in very old versions of iOS, vulnerabilities first published by jailbreak teams, and a couple purchased vulnerabilities. The breakdown ends with a publicly jailbroken iOS version. The Smart TV implant appears to just be a modified version of an open source firmware replacement project.
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
Journalism classes in Romania a few decades ago included exercises like: "Take this footage of snow in Bucharest and use it to tell a variety of different stories, e.g. 'Bucharest is paralysed by snow' or 'Bucharest enjoys fresh snowfall' or 'Bucharest efficiently deals with snow storm', etc". If we think that just because something is factually true no one is trying to fool us, we're quite the fools.
I'm reminded of the replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13445190 (about the Guardian story on WhatsApp). There Maciej, for example, said > I think the vaccine analogy is really helpful here. You can make true statements, like "vaccines can kill you", that cause massive public harm if they're not correctly contextualized.
Much of the US media narrative about its overseas interventions likewise fall into this category.
Much of the war propaganda consumed by the US population is based on truth. The problem is that US citizens don't have the appropriate context to understand that truth. The fallout is incredible damage to people and lives overseas caught up in great power struggle that could be a different way if there we a systemic commitment toward building a real basis toward international security (over, say, unipolar control).
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#698Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't actually say why they shouldn't be doing this, though. Everyone with this opinion seems to base it on moral grounds around privacy, but in practical terms, is this really harming citizens? So far there's zero evidence these things being used illegally domestically. IE: Without a warrant. There is some evidence that they've prevented some wrongdoing with it, though. I get the theoretical moral argument. I ju…
> So far there's zero evidence these things being used illegally domestically. There is evidence that NSA employees or contractors have used domestic surveillance to spy on exes. There is evidence that Marines have shared clandestinely obtained nudie pics of female Marines. Why would the people working at the CIA be any different? If you take a large human organization, and give them the tools to spy on their fellow…
That is what I and I believe the parent is getting at. Regardless of our moral standings on if the CIA should be doing this, realistically the CIA can be doing it.
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#699I'm not shocked at any of this. The writing has been on the wall as early as 2001 that the NSA and CIA has been gearing up and building these exploits out. Here is a nice PBS documentary on the subject of FISA & NSA surveillance, and of course the CIA is no lone wolf, these agencies were given carte blanche by previous administrations to work together. While I believe they are different in aspects of what they do, from this perspective, I think its fair to say that likely if the CIA has it, the NSA has it, and if the NSA has it, the CIA most likely has it or can get it.
To illustrate a nice timely, take a look at this gem from 2001
https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/fl32-soc-ussfisa/un...
Around the same time, we even had this pop up: its a run down as to why the NSA needs to have this 'legal authority' to act with impunity for 'American interests'
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB178/surv34.pdf
and of course, we have the NPR story that breaks it all down over the NSA wiretapping debate:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html
Take special note here: hardly any at length commentary at all so far and the news is pretty sparse. Largely, it seems people were not paying attention, yet right here its clear as day that the NSA was gearing up to expand and use its surveillance capabilities.
Of course, around all this, it is clear the NSA and the CIA would be sharing exploits like these, it is likely these were all used in joint context with each other:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0006184107....
and of course, the ACLU has a relevant statement on this as well, i think its quite a good summary of the feelings at the time:
https://www.aclu.org/other/how-anti-terrorism-bill-puts-cia-...
Then, we have these here, around 2004-2006:
The first real report coming out is from the ACLU, reporting about the NSAs massive build up since 9/11 and how its creating a lot of questionable actions to be undertaken by the agency, in which they allege, at the time, among other things, that the NSA is spying on US citizens:
https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf
My favorite quote:
National Security Letters. These obscure devices, which can be written by FBI officials in field offices without the approval of a judge, give the government broad power to demand records. Once upon a time this sweeping power could only be used to get information about “agents of a foreign power” from banks, credit agencies and Internet service providers. But the Patriot Act changed the law to allow their use against anyone, including persons not suspected of a crime. The bill quietly signed into law by President Bush in December 2003
but wait, there is more!
Around the same time, the GAO had noted that there was an increasing amount of trouble coming from cyber security experts about cybersecurity infrastructure in the states. How easy they were to exploit, their threat to infrastructure, and how it could affect people. How is this related? This same type of report details alot of the exploits that the NSA has used, such as stuxnet, which come to light many years later:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf
and less us not forget, the NSA tried to sway attention away from itself by releasing this tidy memo, which got leaked, in and around 2004:
https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/EPIC-NSA-USSID-18-and-Dome...
In which they promise to quote 'no longer use their spying apparatus on US citizens knowingly'(i'm paraphrasing)
and of course,
We have this report from 2006 from the Indiana Law Journal detailing all of the potential pitfalls and abuses of the FISA courts. In essence, to sum it all up, it states:
Accordingly, to extend the “special needs” doctrine to the NSA program, which authorizes unlimited warrantless wiretapping of the most private of conversations without statutory authority, judicial review, or probable cause, would be to render that doctrine unrecognizable. The DOJ’s efforts to fit the square peg of NSA surveillance into the round hole of the “special needs” doctrine only underscores the grave constitutional concerns that this program raises
oh and i didn't forget: we got concrete evidence of state sponsored Russian hacking against US systems since as early as 2008:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-027.pdf
relevant quote:
The head of the Russian Army Centre for Military Forecast, Colonel Anatoly Tsyganok, made comments to the Russian news outlet, Gazeta, about the cyber attacks on Estonia. He believes that there was nothing wrong with the attacks because there are no international agreements established. Colonel Tsyganok also believes that NATO couldn’t do anything to stop the attacks and that they were highly successful. The most telling example of Russian government involvement in cyber warfare was with Herman Simm selling IT secrets to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service that was discussed in Section VIII of this monograph. This case showed that the government of the Russian Federation is actively seeking information on cyber defenses and is willing to pay large sums of money (Mr.Simm is accused of selling cyber security secrets for millions of dollars) to receive information on cyber security.
I feel like the tech public that should be doing the diligence on this has been asleep at the wheel. On the recent stories from NSA surveillance, the CIA leak we are reading here, or other government programs. Its not crackpot. Its not a conspiracy. The evidence has been out there in our faces for years. I feel like we fell asleep at the wheel as a tech community to stand up to this.
Re: CIA malware and hacking tools
#700Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is very naive. Russia lists a number of true things about its opponents but it only includes the truths that fit the story it wants to tell. The same goes for China, and even the U.S. What people here are asking is: "what is the story Wikileaks is trying to tell". Before they thought it was that "government is not trustworthy and needs a watchdog". Now it's possible the story is "Don't trust anyone who d…
This problem is instantly saolved if you have more than one source. The answer to this is not "IGNORE WIKILEAKS," and the suggestion that it is makes me doubt your motives, the answer is "READ MULTIPLE SOURCES." There are far more than enough actors with far more than enough relevant information, and certainly the capacity to distribute that information, to fill in the gaps.
(I certain that more groups exist, but really, I can't name any others.)