Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#111

Post by impldefined »

tosseraccount wrote: post #33
sneak wrote: post #21

Too bad they are legally prohibited from doing this when the state-sponsored attack is a PATRIOT NSL from the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter China reading your mail: Big red flag. USA reading your mail: Business as usual.

The difference between rights in America and China are vast. Criticizing legitimate American counter-terrorism and counter espionage and suggesting that it's equivalent to China's suppression of thought of its citizens (and people in occupied zones like Tibet) are disingenuous. Dissent in China will get you a prison sentence or worse. Dissent in America will get your karma modded down. (Q.E.D) Want more relevant wiki…

>Criticizing legitimate American counter-terrorism and counter espionage and suggesting that it's equivalent to China's suppression of thought of its citizens

This is infuriating. I'm sure China would claim their censorship is "counter-terrorism" or some equivalent nonsense. What the US is doing has nothing to do with terrorism which is why they're catching other crimes (mostly drug related) instead of actual terrorists.

It's frustrating that even on HN there are people who buy into all the eroding of rights in the name of "protecting freedom". The danger the terrorists presented wasn't even that big. They must have been shocked when they saw what they were able to make us do to ourselves.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#112

Post by rdtsc »

taliesinb wrote: post #98
rdtsc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criticizing legitimate American counter-terrorism and counter espionage and suggesting that it's equivalent to China's suppression of thought of its citizens (and people in occupied zones like Tibet) are disingenuous. However, what is not disingenuous is characterizing American behavior vis-a-vis the propaganda it espouses. That is a good test for any institution or country. Don't even need China here. Compare what…

This. The philosopher Zizek has a great bit about the "unknown knowns" (the quadrant Rumsfeld wasn't smart enough to articulate). Meaning, of course, the unperceived fabric of Western ideology -- that works far better than explicit propaganda ever could. Here is exactly when he starts talking about it in his Authors@Google talk: http://youtu.be/_x0eyNkNpL0?t=3m18s

Thank you. Very good talk by Zizek.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#113

Post by brown9-2 »

taliesinb wrote: post #101
brown9-2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could Google sidestep compliance with US laws? They are incorporated in the US, are they not?

I imagine in ways analogous to how they avoid paying US taxes, even though they are incorporated in the US.

That wouldn't work. Their tax avoidance strategies are legal with respect to US law. If they operated in the US without honoring DMCA requests, Patriot Act etc, they'd quickly be sued or arrested by the US govt.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#114

Post by s_henry_paulson »

3pt14159 wrote: post #25

They should have included the words "if at all possible, format your compute and reinstall a new operating system with latest updates immediately . If someone has a keylogger on your computer it is game over anyways. (Since they can "read" the mail you send just by recording the keystrokes)

FYI, rootkits can survive a HD format.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#115

Post by tomjen3 »

ktizo wrote: post #81
tomjen3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume that people agree with me. Most people are far more interested in security than freedom. Which a valid choice so long as that choice is made for them alone, and they don't make it for me. I don't have the speaking skills to convince the world of this, but coming of age after 9/11, I have seen first-hand the awesome power of fear.

You speak like a tinpot Mussolini. [edit] So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you are saying that after seeing the damage that fear has done to your culture (which I would say is far, far greater than the damage done to New York on 911), you then think that you should stir more fear and use it to achieve your political desires. In a just cause, of course. Everyone has a just cause. And your justification is that yo…

The damage that happened was due to misuse of fear. You wouldn't blame a surgeon for cutting up people to heal them, would you?

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#116

Post by ceph_ »

markerdmann wrote: post #83
utlanning wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a setup to a thriller movie, but the relevance to the article is lost on me. Am I just missing something?

Her account was affected this morning by the attack reported in the article.

You didn't read the article. It's about a security feature being added, not a specific attack.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#117

Post by stevenrace »

tptacek wrote: post #91
chives wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a wired article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/al... "Before yottabytes of data from the deep web and elsewhere can begin piling up inside the servers of the NSA’s new center, they must be collected. To better accomplish that, the agency has undergone the largest building boom in its history, including installing secret electronic monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities. Contr…

Well, if Wired says so, I guess I'll stop encrypting my email.

Nor will I.

But it's worth acknowledging such programs exist and don't appear to be going away.

Beyond the AT&T incident (and following legal ruling dismissing, retroactively, carriers from wrongdoing in wiretapping).... there's also the 'TrailBlazer Project'[1] with public accounts from William Binney (NSA , 'Director of World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group')and Thomas Drake [2] (NSA) regarding the overreach of such projects....that it's kinda hard to exclude data and so forth.

Jacob Applebaum (Tor, etc) recently dragged William Binney around NYC to gather publicity [3] - but few outlets paid much attention.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

[3] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq3fgwV7doY

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#118

Post by kamjam »

w1ntermute wrote: post #24
sneak wrote: post #21

Too bad they are legally prohibited from doing this when the state-sponsored attack is a PATRIOT NSL from the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter China reading your mail: Big red flag. USA reading your mail: Business as usual.

Well, Google doesn't really have a choice but to follow the laws of the country it's based in. Do they at least explicitly explain this caveat somewhere?

Anyone know what the situation is with Google in the rest of the world? I know they have offices in various locations around Europe for example, and they have to comply with the recent EU "Cookie Laws"... which laws apply then?

(I can't recall if the ToS refer to US or EU)

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#119

Post by ktizo »

tomjen3 wrote: post #115
ktizo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You speak like a tinpot Mussolini. [edit] So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you are saying that after seeing the damage that fear has done to your culture (which I would say is far, far greater than the damage done to New York on 911), you then think that you should stir more fear and use it to achieve your political desires. In a just cause, of course. Everyone has a just cause. And your justification is that yo…

The damage that happened was due to misuse of fear. You wouldn't blame a surgeon for cutting up people to heal them, would you?

You say you want to use fear to influence the society of which you are a part, because you think that it's general attitude towards security impinges too much upon your own personal freedom and you also don't trust anyone else to be able to deal with honesty. And so you are actually attacking others who are trying to be honest, for not just ramping up the fear in the direction that you perceive would most satisfy your own self interest.

Remind me where the surgeon metaphor fits into all of this horseshit.

Post reply on HN