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

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#81

Post by ktizo »

tomjen3 wrote: post #54
chc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry if the truth is inconvenient, but that's no excuse for suppressing it and spreading lies in its place. If they really are so bad, you shouldn't need to subvert the truth in order to prove it — because their badness is the truth. If they aren't that bad, I don't see why it's so important to make people scared to death of them that I'd sacrifice my good name to do so.

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 you don't think you are eloquent enough to convince people by other means? That is a fucking repulsive attitude.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#82

Post by ballard »

sneak wrote: post #53
haberman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone appeals to me to care about X but lies about the facts of X, their credibility is damaged in my eyes and I am inclined to think that they are overplaying the danger. For example, "sneak" replied to my comment with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS and links to other information. But I'm already less inclined to trust sneak, since he/she is already known to play fast and loose with the facts.

I don't mean to appear to be playing fast and loose with the facts. Certainly, the NSA tapping exchanges is a different issue than whatever restrictions the government has placed on itself when issuing NSLs for message metadata. The fact is, message metadata is enough. I have friends and acquaintances that have been harassed and detained by officials based on their names appearing in contact lists of other suspected-…

One of the big issues: the watchers need to be watched. Too many secrets creates an opportunity for hiding malfeasance, real or perceived. Grant external auditors enough clearance with the caveat of separating background investigation diligence from those being audited. This implies strict independence and jurisdiction of auditors to materially enforce the constitution and provide adequate safeguards to be sure organizations are not exceeding their charter to amass more power and control behind an obscure exemption from reporting requirements.

And, if one had the responsibility to defend against many types of harm, one question begs asking: Would it not be rational prevention to attempt to detect planning and coordination? What specific measures would be deployable and which would not?

It does not sound reasonable to mandate a blanket intelligence policy of "don't ever read anyone's email, don't ever capture any packets and don't ever look online." Perhaps something more of "Every intelligence analyst is being monitored 24/7 by external auditors. If there is so much as viewing of porn on Company time, their career is immediately over."

I can neither confirm nor deny that dozens of analysts have been let go for this reason.

The fourth amendment is quite clear in both spirit and letter as to the nature of privacy rights that the state must respect. If the state fails at this, it would be rightly a failure of all individuals to keep their politicians, and hence state, honest.

Ultimately, there exists an implicit balancing act on the ground with the realization that wishing the world were perfectly safe everywhere does not make it so. There are some sick, crafty actors out there that have nothing but contempt for their life and society, and are okay with blowing themselves up and generally dragging society down for their own delusions.

Also, if limited methods and case files were made available for semi-public inspection, perhaps there would be less mistrust of organizations that attempt to hide everything behind a veil of mystery. (Security theater is another rant.)

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#83

Post by markerdmann »

utlanning wrote: post #70
markerdmann wrote: post #40

Live from the scene: my partner just found that she wasn't able to log in to her Gmail account because her password was suddenly invalid. Luckily she was able to reset it quickly and regain control of the account. When she checked the recent activity, though, it showed that all logins in the past 12 hours came from her IP.

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.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#86

Post by utlanning »

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.

So she saw the alert described in the article? You didn't really mention that.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#87

Post by _delirium »

sneak wrote: post #63
tosseraccount wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Dissent in China will get you a prison sentence or worse. Dissent in America will get your karma modded down. I think Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Dmitry Sklyarov may disagree with you.

There are certainly examples of persecuted dissidents in both countries. What I'm missing in China is any examples of dissidents who've achieved any success, comparable to American examples of dissidents in prominent, even state-sponsored roles. And, in particular, any ability of ordinary people to read and discuss what dissidents write. You and I can discuss Bradley Manning here. And I'll agree he is not being treated in a justifiable manner. Can Chinese citizens openly discuss dissidents, and criticize their governments' treatment of them?

For example, after Angela Davis (Black Panther activist) was acquitted, she became a tenured professor at the University of California, where she has, for several decades, continued to unapologetically oppose the United States government. And she's hardly the only one; there are many dissidents who are professors at American universities, some of which are even state-run universities. Noam Chomsky, of course, has not been removed from his professorship at MIT, despite his political views.

Are there any prominent Chinese dissidents who are now tenured professors at Chinese universities, without recanting? If we compare to Davis's role as a minority-group activist--- can you imagine a Tibetan or Xinjiang activist, who opposes the Chinese government's rule over those regions, becoming a tenured professor in China? Being able to teach courses openly about those disputes? Being able to publish critical books through the university press, which any ordinary person can order online with a few clicks? All of that happens in the United States, but doesn't happen in China.

I'm not hugely into political theory, but I read some of it, mostly tending towards the leftist side. And I am able to buy any of this in the United States, completely openly, even stuff much more radical than what I typically buy. Not even in backrooms or dark alleys, but from Amazon, delivered to my home address with my real name on the label! I can buy manifestos openly urging the overthrow of the United States government (under Brandenburg v. Ohio, these can't be prosecuted as treason). Can Chinese citizens openly buy manifestos urging the overthrow of the Chinese government?

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#88

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #39
sneak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NSLs can only request non-content information NSLs can't legally request ANYTHING. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The government has NO AUTHORITY to issue them. The fact that they are presently limiting themselves to illegal request x instead of illegal request y is not relevant. Let's skip the abuses of the FBI et al and talk about the government as a whole for a minute. Are you aware that the NSA monitors _all_ traff…

'haberman's comment includes actual information. Can we not punish people for posting information? I doubt very much that 'haberman approves of NSLs, especially since he said as much. Moreover, your comment may actually be incorrect; a good chunk of all the mail Gmail handles is never on the wire in a format that can be decrypted with any known attack without access to Google's (often pinned) secret keys. The NSA's a…

[deleted]

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#89

Post by chives »

tptacek wrote: post #39
sneak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NSLs can only request non-content information NSLs can't legally request ANYTHING. They are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The government has NO AUTHORITY to issue them. The fact that they are presently limiting themselves to illegal request x instead of illegal request y is not relevant. Let's skip the abuses of the FBI et al and talk about the government as a whole for a minute. Are you aware that the NSA monitors _all_ traff…

'haberman's comment includes actual information. Can we not punish people for posting information? I doubt very much that 'haberman approves of NSLs, especially since he said as much. Moreover, your comment may actually be incorrect; a good chunk of all the mail Gmail handles is never on the wire in a format that can be decrypted with any known attack without access to Google's (often pinned) secret keys. The NSA's a…

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. Controlled by the NSA, these highly secured spaces are where the agency taps into the US communications networks, a practice that came to light during the Bush years but was never acknowledged by the agency. The broad outlines of the so-called warrantless-wiretapping program have long been exposed—how the NSA secretly and illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was supposed to oversee and authorize highly targeted domestic eavesdropping; how the program allowed wholesale monitoring of millions of American phone calls and email. In the wake of the program’s exposure, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely made the practices legal. Telecoms that had agreed to participate in the illegal activity were granted immunity from prosecution and lawsuits. What wasn’t revealed until now, however, was the enormity of this ongoing domestic spying program."

Its a recent article outlining what's ahead (and presently implemented) for the NSA. Given what is already known, the U.S. Govt already has access to your e-mail, and they have the capabilities to decrypt it should your e-mail become high priority.

I'm sorry, but the sky is falling.

Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks

#90

Post by rdtsc »

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 (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 happens in US and what US does internationally vs. what US govt and many of its citizens believe or tell others about America. "We are a beacon of democracy " that's a common idea. So now let's see how is the power distributed in US? Does the average citizen have the power to make decision and is that comparable to what the propaganda fantasy is promoting. How about another one "US Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and severely restricts the power of the government from invading our privacy". A lot of people believe that (doesn't matter if they are Americans or not). Is that true compared to the number of people believing in that? I say it is not. A lot of people are living a lie, believing in a fantasy about the government that is not based in reality. I say that is unhealthy.

Something similar is happening in China or other repressive governments. People are lead to believe in things that are divorced from reality. "We are a paradise". "American Imperialists are out to destroy US" and so on.

There is actually one difference. In some countries (and I can speak for the former Soviet Union during its last days) people knew propaganda was lie and they laughed at it in private. We knew the image we were supposed to have about our country was false. Many Americans are not aware of it. The brainwashing is so effective, they actually believe we are exporting democracy in the Middle East. They believe we have the best health care system . Heck, many believe evolution is a big lie. There is a great amount of self delusion and self censorship. That is unhealthy.

So going back to the comparison. You are right, comparing US to China in absolute terms in certain areas, is like night and day. Say, when it comes to freedom of speech. You can grab a megaphone and go yell out crazy conspiracy stuff right by Obama's front gate. But if you look at the level of delusion, the situation, I think is not as great.

Post reply on HN