11–20 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the classic Five Eyes loophole? I'll spy on you, you'll spy on me, and we'll exchange notes.
The US is explicitly not getting data on US citizens from foreign spying according to this article? And the article implies that no loophole was needed for Australia to get data on Australians, there was a legal warrant for that in Australia. So how is this the "classic Five Eyes loophole"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The app was a plant, preloaded on mobile phones you'd only buy for criminal acts, so probably not much more than 251. For the record, they almost certainly overreached elsewhere but imo, what was done with this app is pretty fair and balanced. It's much better than requiring backdoors in apps or services. It's almost like real police work.
they also paid a subscription fee :-P and it was invite only...
1. There is a well known adage that goes something like, 'if the service is free, you're the product.' One could easily think the inverse is true ('if you're paying for the product, you're the customer') but obviously in the light of this case it isn't necessarily so. But making users pay for the service likely decreased their level of suspicion.
2. Need to tie a pseudonym to real person? A credit card number, bank account, or even a bitcoin public key get you a long way toward that goal.
>agents were not allowed to download or read any messages sent from AN0M accounts in the United States because of privacy laws. "Privacy laws" being the Fourth Amendment, which the article still makes it sound like they violated by downloading all the messages three times a week.
> By the end of 2019, this third country was sending data to the FBI every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, according to the court document. > "This data comprises the encrypted messages of all the users of AN0MS with a few exceptions," the document reads. > Those exceptions included approximately 15 AN0M users in the United States. Sounds like the FBI got the data of everyone except the US users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they also paid a subscription fee :-P and it was invite only...
This is brilliant on two counts: 1. There is a well known adage that goes something like, 'if the service is free, you're the product.' One could easily think the inverse is true ('if you're paying for the product, you're the customer') but obviously in the light of this case it isn't necessarily so. But making users pay for the service likely decreased their level of suspicion. 2. Need to tie a pseudonym to real per…
I need to go find a copy of the adverts and spec for this product.. i'd love to know how they got around lying to their customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By the end of 2019, this third country was sending data to the FBI every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, according to the court document. > "This data comprises the encrypted messages of all the users of AN0MS with a few exceptions," the document reads. > Those exceptions included approximately 15 AN0M users in the United States. Sounds like the FBI got the data of everyone except the US users.
Isn't this the classic Five Eyes loophole? I'll spy on you, you'll spy on me, and we'll exchange notes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the classic Five Eyes loophole? I'll spy on you, you'll spy on me, and we'll exchange notes.
The US is explicitly not getting data on US citizens from foreign spying according to this article? And the article implies that no loophole was needed for Australia to get data on Australians, there was a legal warrant for that in Australia. So how is this the "classic Five Eyes loophole"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is brilliant on two counts: 1. There is a well known adage that goes something like, 'if the service is free, you're the product.' One could easily think the inverse is true ('if you're paying for the product, you're the customer') but obviously in the light of this case it isn't necessarily so. But making users pay for the service likely decreased their level of suspicion. 2. Need to tie a pseudonym to real per…
I like privacy as well, but i can't help but be amused by this whole situation. I need to go find a copy of the adverts and spec for this product.. i'd love to know how they got around lying to their customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like privacy as well, but i can't help but be amused by this whole situation. I need to go find a copy of the adverts and spec for this product.. i'd love to know how they got around lying to their customers.
IIRC they explicitly used the slogan "Developed by criminals for criminals" or something like that in marketing the device - which has the nice side effect of providing some justification to issue a warrant for all users, that there is some probable cause for reading all data, not just some specific people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC they explicitly used the slogan "Developed by criminals for criminals" or something like that in marketing the device - which has the nice side effect of providing some justification to issue a warrant for all users, that there is some probable cause for reading all data, not just some specific people.
So truth in advertising. Too bad the criminals on other side worked for government...