61–70 of 420 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people assume the Chinese government is not able to use similar techniques?
China doesn't have agreements with BT, AT&T etc which allow it to tap fibre in our countries at will. I'm sure they try some tapping, but they can't do it on the scale that GCHQ and the NSA have been outside China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people assume the Chinese government is not able to use similar techniques?
China doesn't have agreements with BT, AT&T etc which allow it to tap fibre in our countries at will. I'm sure they try some tapping, but they can't do it on the scale that GCHQ and the NSA have been outside China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese were targeting specific journalists and critics. Presumably to harass them. I'm not saying the US doesn't do that, but the evidence is not as clear.
Maybe you didn't notice the detainment of Greenwald's partner by the GCHQ whereby they demanded him to turn-over/destroy whatever he had. Further, the break-in to Greenwald's residence and theft of his machine. As well as the visit to the Guardian and destrution of machines.... The evidence is crystal.
In the case of the Chinese hackers, they were spying on reporters to discover their sources.
What they appeared to be looking for were the names of people who might have provided information to Mr. Barboza.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers...
AFAIK we don't have evidence of similar US spying for the purpose of blackmail, harassment, etc. because my concern is whether the NSA might use its sources for those ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to the NYT attacks, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers... Also, what kind of spy uses gmail? Sheesh.
Also, what kind of spy uses gmail? Sheesh. The kind that is trying to maintain cover as a non-spy so uses the same email services as everybody else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There still have to be technical people involved for refocusing software. You don't simply drag and drop an icon to get something redeployed for another purpose, and definitely not for something of this complexity.
I agree, however I think it is very credible that a lot of people involved in this were not fully aware or complicit in regards to what was happen. I do not think they were stupid, but just didn't see the entire picture, or were never given the entire picture.
Governments don't like challenge to its power. They will find ways to control the Jedi Council.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China doesn't have agreements with BT, AT&T etc which allow it to tap fibre in our countries at will. I'm sure they try some tapping, but they can't do it on the scale that GCHQ and the NSA have been outside China.
But they could easily have agreements with every chip fab to build back doors into every piece of networking equipment.
Lets start from the beginning: the NSA "hack" became possible because Google (and its security team) made bad assumptions about the security of the connection between Google's data centers and did not encrypt the traffic. Basically, this is security 101: protect data at rest and protect data in flight. So, sorry but I think the better subject for discussion would be how badly Google screwed up, not how evil is NSA. M…
Cussing is all fine and understandable, but I missed the part where the Google opsec team was searching for and plugging the holes the NSA is exploiting, or switching to another carrier, or suing the NSA for illegal wiretapping.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-06/business/41831...
I can understand using unencrypted network within a data center (unless you are doubly paranoid), but why wouldn't they encrypt data between data centers?
Apparently these data centers were linked via dedicated lines -- there was no traffic or outside access to these fiber lines. They were used solely for communication between the two data centers (so technically still an isolated network).