31–40 of 80 posts
If I were to set up a company which sold similar products at similar prices, I would expect the FBI to come knocking at my door very quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The releases are outside Snowden's control now. He carefully gave a dump of information to two newspapers. Those newspapers control the flow of the information now, and they obviously want to maximise the benefit to themselves by releasing the information in controlled manner.
Snowden is milking the attention as well. Look at the livestream going on right now, he's discussing the information live.
While everyone else is dissecting the information and trying to digest it and working on solutions to the surveillance problem; you're obsessed with the messenger.
Why?
I know many love to consider Snowden and Assange "heroes", but I think these two are people we should think outside the box on. Are they acting in the interest of everyone, themselves, or another party? The releases, interviews, and otherwise that get released seem very scripted and controlled. The propaganda machine is skilled and there may be unseen benefits to these leaks.
Like Julian Assange repurposing wikileaks donations into the Julian Assange sexual assault defense fund? Whatever you may think of the allegations, it has become extremely blurry as what the money donated to wikileaks' operation is actually used for, seeing as how Julian Assange wasn't supposed to be wikileaks.
Why do you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snowden is milking the attention as well. Look at the livestream going on right now, he's discussing the information live.
You're deliberately trying to discredit a person who made available proof that the surveillance machine is out of control. While everyone else is dissecting the information and trying to digest it and working on solutions to the surveillance problem; you're obsessed with the messenger. Why?
I'm merely trying to explain it's worthwhile to consider Snowden isn't acting in our best interest. Imagine Snowden's supervisor comes to him and says: "You're going on an extended special mission abroad. Leak these documents to some journalists. Act like you're trying to shed light on what's going on by playing the victim card. The goal is...."?
Per the leaks, solutions to the surveillance problem are limited and likely won't become something proliferated through the masses due to cost, availability, usability, or some combination of the three. We're talking about eliminating hardware-level vulnerabilities, not patching software. And even when and if we do fix these vulnerabilities, what's to stop them from doing it again? All it takes is threatening the life of the company or individuals involved in the development process.
So, it seems the NSW police here in Australia are a customer and use this. Ignore for a moment whether it's a good or bad thing that police use tools like these. What I want to know is, what happens once they "get their guy", so to speak. Does the malware stay on that computer forever, violating the privacy of family members, or other users of the computer should it be sold on and not wiped correctly? What happens if…
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/nsw-police-use-ha...
I hope Norton is updating their database accordingly.
If I were to download this, I'd do it with some masking tape over my webcam, booted from Kali Linux, inside a Windows VM from a library or coffee shop.
If I were to download this, I'd do it with some masking tape over my webcam, booted from Kali Linux, inside a Windows VM from a library or coffee shop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're deliberately trying to discredit a person who made available proof that the surveillance machine is out of control. While everyone else is dissecting the information and trying to digest it and working on solutions to the surveillance problem; you're obsessed with the messenger. Why?
I do not follow what you mean by discretize, could you elaborate? I'm merely trying to explain it's worthwhile to consider Snowden isn't acting in our best interest. Imagine Snowden's supervisor comes to him and says: "You're going on an extended special mission abroad. Leak these documents to some journalists. Act like you're trying to shed light on what's going on by playing the victim card. The goal is...."? Per t…
I disagree. Solutions can involve broadening technical security awareness and education, not only for experts, but for the great masses. Suddenly, people who wouldn't have done it otherwise, are installing PGP, guided by well-designed step-by-step-instructions which haven't existed before Snowden. This is per se a Good Thing.
Awareness leads to more people trying to exploit things previously thought to be at least very improbable to break. Discussions about Crypto-Quines, VM-breakouts, you name it, are suddenly on the rise, at least in my perception (which has since sharpened significantly, and I'm not even in the least involved in security)
Better tools are developed to prevent goto fail;s. Other people fork OpenSSL, sunset SHA1, visit security-related conferences or donate money, you name it. This is a slow process, but things are definitively moving forward.
But again, you're avoiding to answer the question: What a difference would it make if your scenario would be true? Would it negate that mass surveillance exists? Of course not. But that's what's important here, that's what's being worked on by people.
It's one thing to be a classical "we can't win anyway" naysayer, but is's a completely different thing to try to pull an ad hominem derailment, so the question arises: Who are you working for? What if your supervisor came to you telling you "Try to find something about Snowden we can use against him and his findings. A way to discredit him, maybe find someone who went to school with him who can make a fool out of him; maybe try to pull an assange-like sexual assault case on him, anything", what would you do?
Wouldn't we find you here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most definitely. Here is an example: http://1337day.com/exploit/22519
Got anything that doesn't involve the 2d/3d video acceleration? Those are a rather obvious and off-by-default attack surface.