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

281–290 of 323 posts

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

#281

Post by aaren »

mindstab wrote: post #146

Charlie Stross on the topic: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/02/rule-34-... 'For starters, it turns out that 3-11% of Yahoo! webcam traffic involves "undesirable nudity"' "I am still trying to get my head around the implications that the British government's equivalent of the NSA probably holds the world's largest collection of pornographic videos, that the stash is probably contaminated with serious…

" It does, however, suggest to me that the savvy Al Qaida conspirators of the next decade will hold their covert meetings in the nude, on Yahoo! video chat, while furiously masturbating. "

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

#282

Post by dandelany »

blah32497 wrote: post #278
dandelany wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the same idea - vulnerability to coercion.

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

#283

Post by spenvo »

spenvo wrote: post #238
spenvo wrote: post #172

-- Top comment on Reddit [0]: 'This clearly violates both EU and British law. It's simple: Parliament and the CPS can no longer ignore GCHQ's abuses and the entirely inadequate 'oversight' regime of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Brooks et al. go on trial for allegedly hacking celebrities' voicemail messages, but Cabinet ministers walk free after approving secret suspicion-less dragnet recording of millions…

DanBC has the better comment (currently below this one) - I'm not qualified to respond, but it deserves one. Upvote him. I just wanted to point out that (from their mobile sites) I couldn't find a single story about this on CNN, FoxNews or MSNBC. (4:36pm CST) Last time I made a fuss about the media I had Godwin's law and Occam's Razor cited in replies/counters as why bias in the press is purely organic in nature. As…

Still no mention on any of the "big three" websites, mobile or desktop (8:20pm CST). . Update: now FoxNews.com has a small link in top stories. http://imgur.com/CwLet0Z (8:31pm CST) Hurray American media, only 9 hours after the fact! Fizzle...

Here's an eloquent description on Reddit of how this could be the largest case of child pornography distribution on record: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_age...

We must make it our business that heads roll. Troll call-in shows of our (US) cable media--ask them why they aren't giving it its weight. Despite it being the GCHQ (not the NSA), this seems like the greatest evidence given to reformists to date of the overreaching post 9-11 mandates. And it's the unspoken duty of journalists to cover important stories and inform the tens of millions that don't check Reddit, HN, the Guardian, (believe it or not, the Drudge Report), etc.

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

#284

Post by userbinator »

declan wrote: post #132
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they only cost $1-2 and people feel like they add value to the device (to use it with Skype, Yahoo!, Google+ Circles, and so on). There is no evidence right now that the intelligence services can remotely activate webcams on any device of their choosing. They would likely need to first install malware on most devices to accomplish that.

There is, however, evidence that FedGov can remotely activate webcams on some devices of their choosing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-searc... The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations,…

That's what the piece of opaque tape is for.

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

#285

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #178
lucb1e wrote: post #106

Everyone is going on about covering your webcam, but what if I actually want to use it? I get to decide what is being sent over the network, but I still don't get to decide what the GHCQ/NSA/AIVD see by interception. Another example is Kinect, which must be turned on and uncovered because otherwise it is obviously useless. What are we going to do about that? I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a p…

> I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a political one, not a technical one. I disagree. You can trust strong enough crypto, at least to some reasonable extent. You definitely can't trust politicians saying "nah, we're not looking at it" (or anything else they might be saying).

[deleted]

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

#286

Post by userbinator »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #178
lucb1e wrote: post #106

Everyone is going on about covering your webcam, but what if I actually want to use it? I get to decide what is being sent over the network, but I still don't get to decide what the GHCQ/NSA/AIVD see by interception. Another example is Kinect, which must be turned on and uncovered because otherwise it is obviously useless. What are we going to do about that? I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a p…

> I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a political one, not a technical one. I disagree. You can trust strong enough crypto, at least to some reasonable extent. You definitely can't trust politicians saying "nah, we're not looking at it" (or anything else they might be saying).

> You can trust strong enough crypto, at least to some reasonable extent.

Only crypto where only you and the one you're communicating with have the keys; in other words, not the centralised CA model of SSL, nor "secure" boot, nor any other implementation that relies on trusting some central faceless entity that will say lots about "protecting your security and privacy" while doing the exact opposite.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #178
lucb1e wrote: post #106

Everyone is going on about covering your webcam, but what if I actually want to use it? I get to decide what is being sent over the network, but I still don't get to decide what the GHCQ/NSA/AIVD see by interception. Another example is Kinect, which must be turned on and uncovered because otherwise it is obviously useless. What are we going to do about that? I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a p…

> I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a political one, not a technical one. I disagree. You can trust strong enough crypto, at least to some reasonable extent. You definitely can't trust politicians saying "nah, we're not looking at it" (or anything else they might be saying).

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #178
lucb1e wrote: post #106

Everyone is going on about covering your webcam, but what if I actually want to use it? I get to decide what is being sent over the network, but I still don't get to decide what the GHCQ/NSA/AIVD see by interception. Another example is Kinect, which must be turned on and uncovered because otherwise it is obviously useless. What are we going to do about that? I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a p…

> I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a political one, not a technical one. I disagree. You can trust strong enough crypto, at least to some reasonable extent. You definitely can't trust politicians saying "nah, we're not looking at it" (or anything else they might be saying).

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by [deleted] »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #178
lucb1e wrote: post #106

Everyone is going on about covering your webcam, but what if I actually want to use it? I get to decide what is being sent over the network, but I still don't get to decide what the GHCQ/NSA/AIVD see by interception. Another example is Kinect, which must be turned on and uncovered because otherwise it is obviously useless. What are we going to do about that? I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a p…

> I'm very much afraid that the real solution is probably a political one, not a technical one. I disagree. You can trust strong enough crypto, at least to some reasonable extent. You definitely can't trust politicians saying "nah, we're not looking at it" (or anything else they might be saying).

[deleted]

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

#290

Post by spenvo »

DanBC wrote: post #219
spenvo wrote: post #172

-- Top comment on Reddit [0]: 'This clearly violates both EU and British law. It's simple: Parliament and the CPS can no longer ignore GCHQ's abuses and the entirely inadequate 'oversight' regime of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Brooks et al. go on trial for allegedly hacking celebrities' voicemail messages, but Cabinet ministers walk free after approving secret suspicion-less dragnet recording of millions…

The bit of law you quote is less relevant to GCHQ and is aimed more at LEAs spying on parents to make sure they live in a school catchment area; or local councils making sure people applying for parking permits actually live in a qualifying house. Here is the GCHQ bit of RIPA, which makes reference to part of the bit you quoted. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42 GCHQs mission is to monitor all co…

Update from the Guardian:

"Section 8 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) permits GCHQ to perform indiscriminate trawls of external data"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-insists-op...

Post reply on HN