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

GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 323 posts

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#271

Post by makomk »

tripzilch wrote: post #139
user24 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if having the webcam always on but piping to /dev/null would prevent a trojan from accessing it... I also wonder if plugging a 3rd party mic into line-in and switching it off would have a similar effect for the mic. You can never be sure unless your fix is physical.

well if plugging the disabled 3rd party mic somehow leaves the internal one recording, that would imply your soundcard just got upgraded to having the ability for two inputs recording simulataneously. usually cost a premium, such cards :)

Unfortunately, input and output switching is usually implemented in software these days, so an attacker could probably just remotely switch to the internal mic on most laptops.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#272

Post by makomk »

upofadown wrote: post #153

According to this random stackoverflow response, Yahoo video just uses JPEG 2000 compressed frames. If true then Yahoo chat is probably super easy to pick individual frames from. That's likely why the GCHQ picked it for their project... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5257228/do-you-know-what-... There isn't really any new moral here; other than the idea that some unprotected data is in a sense even more unprotect…

If you're only picking frames out at relatively infrequent intervals like GCHQ were, in most video formats it's relatively easy to find keyframes and save those - by definition they're not going to depend on any other frames.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#273

Post by lern_too_spel »

StefanKarpinski wrote: post #27
josephlord wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK have been doing It ties individuals faces to online accounts and computers and possibly addresses. Especially combined with increasing amounts of CCTV it removes further anonymity. I was also disturbed by the "dissemination of offensive images is a disciplinary offence" statement which implied that was not the case for other images and that i…

Obviously, it's not a good thing, but is it really worse than recording all phone call metadata and phone call content?

This is worse because they are actually doing this. They are not actually recording all phone call content.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#274

Post by rdl »

rdl wrote: post #76

This is from people actively webchatting, but in general, for passive collection, I'm a lot more worried about my microphone than my camera. Even without tape over the lens, my laptop usually just sees my face or a blank wall, or a closed cover. It's not like I have my webcam aimed and lighted at my bed or shower or whatever, and in general, the level of compromising information from text or audio would be higher (su…

What I want is a tablet with wireless, USB-host, and no mic/camera/etc. Maybe no speaker, but with a port for a headset for both). With physical tamper-evidence for the case, secure boot, etc. And trustzones.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#275

Post by dsuth »

okasaki wrote: post #71

> Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. That's pretty funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Upstream-slide.jpg

Translation: "We are shocked, shocked to learn that GCHQ were intercepting our traffic! Certainly had no knowledge of this fact, nope, nosiree...".

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#276

Post by prawn »

poulson wrote: post #162
StefanKarpinski wrote: post #19

This really isn't any worse than the other invasions of privacy that have been revealed – but it's much easier to point at it as an egregious and visceral violation of privacy. Even though webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK have been doing, this may be some of the best fodder for arguments to limit such activities. So thank you, UK, for being so dumb.

I think that this leak will have the biggest effect. It bothered me enough that I emailed the entire college of computing at my university (I am a junior faculty member) to argue for setting ethical boundaries for big data projects, but, alas, I doubt that I will get a response.

It should have a big effect, but I doubt anyone will really care. Yet to see a single mention of it (other than mine) on Twitter from those I follow.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#277

Post by lern_too_spel »

okasaki wrote: post #225
lern_too_spel wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the companies have repeatedly explained and as the government's declassified documents show, it's because the companies built systems to automatically send new account data to the government for accounts under court-ordered surveillance as new IMs, emails, etc. came in. This contrasts with having an engineer manually send data dumps daily in some format the government has to figure out how to parse.

I don't believe that's true. Much of the controversy centered around the (highly xenophobic) fact that the NSA was unable to guarantee that it wasn't scooping up data belonging to US citizens. If this was only about court ordered surveillence then surely it could have done so? And second, I specifically remember that all nine companies immediately denied the existence of the program. Then it became too big and it was…

You're confusing different programs. PRISM in particular is only court-ordered surveillance of targeted users. That's what companies like Yahoo! participated in without knowing the NSA's code name for it.

Limiting collection to non-Americans applies to bulk collection programs like the email header collection for unencrypted email deliveries crossing national borders and like this program. Those are programs the companies didn't know about and are understandably outraged about.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#278

Post by blah32497 »

dandelany wrote: post #268
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this true ?! Any evidence? Is there a page on whitehouse.gov with F R Smith - foot fetish (moderate), would like to be a Gimp but never found the right owner.

Yes it's sort of true - the concern here is about being susceptible to blackmail or coercion, which rules out pretty much anyone who has a personal secret which they feel ashamed about or would go to great lengths to keep secret. If you're gay and out, there's no security concern, but if you're in the closet, there is a chance someone could find out and blackmail you into revealing secret information. This also appli…

The debt issues has less to do with blackmail, and more to do with having serious financial strains. They're concerned you'll sell information in exchange for money so that you can pay off your debts. It's the same for drug addiction and gambling.

I think there was a guy that was caught spying recently that had a gambling addiction.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#279

Post by _ls7m »

acqq wrote: post #253
_ls7m wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also 'omitted' the rest of the bible. I quoted the whole verse of Matthew 5:17. I don't see any issue with Matthew 5:18 in regards to my statement.

It is the next sentence said by Jesus himself, confirming the law of the prophets: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished." I don't see heaven and earth passed away, so the laws of the prophets still hold according to Jesus himself. He said that. Written one sentence after the one you quote claiming th…

I think we've probably reached the limit of productive conversation on the topic. You seem intent on clinging to a contradiction that doesn't exist in the text. But it was good to discuss it.

Yeah, the GCHQ thing is jacked up but not surprising. The connectedness and anonymity of the digital world and its increasing integration into our lives makes for some pretty scary scenarios.

Re: GCHQ intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users worldwide

#280

Post by aaren »

spenvo wrote: post #259
pyre wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> points to an invisible hand Or that the average US citizen (the market for those news corps) doesn't give jack shit about it (not that this is a good thing). Netizens and UK citizens don't factor into the equation for these companies.

That's the simpler explanation, but Occam's Razor is a thin reed to lean on, because simpler doesn't equate to correctness. Let's inspect: "the US market doesn't give jack shit". But how would we know? The media hasn't even tried. I imagine this would piss me off if I were a Rachael-Maddow-watching soccer mom. Show anchors are hired for their ability to work up their viewers. Taking pics of me in my underwear is a so…

The US would care if the baby-boomer/mainstream media tried, at all.

Exactly this. Making people care about an issue is entirely a question of narrative. They aren't even narrating this story.

Post reply on HN