PDA

View Full Version : All Your Webcams belong to Us.



CyberP
27th Feb 2014, 20:30
All your webcams are belong to us.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo?commentpage=4

Sexually explicit images have been mined against peoples will.

Read the ****** article.

Jito463
27th Feb 2014, 21:18
Just one reason I'm glad I don't own a webcam. Well, with the exception of the one built into my netbook, but one of the first things I did after buying it was to open the cover around my screen and physically unplug it. I have no need of or use for one.

CyberP
27th Feb 2014, 21:30
Own an Xbox One/Kinect? Playstation? Mobile phone? All compromised buddy. If it's a cam that connects to the web it's compromised.

have some beauty in these dark times:

WPVHwwm-oDc

Jito463
27th Feb 2014, 22:08
No consoles at all (PC only), and internet is blocked on my phone (no data plan, so I blocked it to avoid accidental charges). I think I'm good.

Shralla
27th Feb 2014, 22:25
Sure sounds like the Internet. Good thing I don't care how many people see my dick.

CyberP
27th Feb 2014, 22:47
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/giveup.gif

FrankCSIS
28th Feb 2014, 03:19
This plan is magnificent. We just wait for known wanted terrorists to pull their trousers down for a good ol session of cybersex, and let the facial recognition software do the rest. Never mind the pedos, intelligence agents are now going to pass as virgins to entrap some jihadists.


I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should

Seriously, how much tax money is being invested in this? Although, I suppose, it makes more sense than CCTV camera, seeing as the subjects being spied on are actually footing the camera hardware bill themselves.

If I owned a webcam, I would make it a priority to be naked every minute I spent in front of my PC, with the camera aimed at my junk. Spy on this, fellas.

CyberP
28th Feb 2014, 21:37
I'm not sure some of you are registering the monumental scale of this revelation.

Spyhopping
28th Feb 2014, 22:20
I'm registering the monumental scale of Frank's revelation! Sorry, someone had to say it.

Looking at the article, this sort of thing bothers me on a social conscience level, but there isn't a glimmer of concern on a personal level. If GCHQ wants to see what I get up to on webcam, then they are welcome to bore themselves with it. I particularly hope they enjoy the conversations I have with my mother about the weather.

FrankCSIS
28th Feb 2014, 23:26
I'm not sure some of you are registering the monumental scale of this revelation.

When it was announced our national pension fund lost 46 billion dollars on dodgy investments, people seemed apathetic at first glance. The reality is, however, that 46 billion dollars just couldn't be registered in the collective or individual mind. Heads would have rolled for far less, but this was so big people just froze.

It's like what Douglas Adams said, about the size of the universe, and being forced to contemplate it.

Then there is the sheer ridiculousness of paying people to sit there and watch millions of random webcam footage. There is an absurdity to this enormity only Peter Sellers could render appropriately.

CyberP
28th Feb 2014, 23:41
I'm registering the monumental scale of Frank's revelation! Sorry, someone had to say it.

Looking at the article, this sort of thing bothers me on a social conscience level, but there isn't a glimmer of concern on a personal level. If GCHQ wants to see what I get up to on webcam, then they are welcome to bore themselves with it. I particularly hope they enjoy the conversations I have with my mother about the weather.

So what else are you willing to let other people do to you and your family? What if I come peer through your window and eavesdrop on your conversations? What about those with children? It combines rather sinisterly with the recent revelation of destroying reputations via the net also. And what about in 15 years time when technology is far more advanced?

Like I said, not registering.

Shralla
28th Feb 2014, 23:49
I'm not sure some of you are registering the monumental scale of this revelation.

It's not really a revelation. Anybody who knows how the Internet works knows this stuff can happen and has been happening for some time. Your cell phone texts and conversations can be read right out of the air. It's just genuinely unsurprising.

CyberP
1st Mar 2014, 00:01
It's not really a revelation. Anybody who knows how the Internet works knows this stuff can happen and has been happening for some time. Your cell phone texts and conversations can be read right out of the air. It's just genuinely unsurprising.

Indeed. Anyone with the skills can gain access to a webcam. It's called criminal activity and you expect your government to protect you from it with laws, not engage in the act themselves. unsurprising or not, you are all bending over backwards and allowing it, what else will you allow?
Let's see your junk then, you don't mind you said.

Additionally, not everybody knows how the internet works, children most notably don't know. They should be protected, safe especially in their own home.

FrankCSIS
1st Mar 2014, 00:39
The scandal is indeed they decided to go ahead and do it, on an industrial level no less. This is the kind of stuff we used to do as teenagers, just to see if we could. Eavesdrop on police frequencies, send backdoor entry programs hidden within other programs and turn webcams on, tie a camera to an RC helicopter, stuff like that. It wasn't only illegal, but purely juvenile. Fun, but juvenile.

Illegal and juvenile are not terms you wish to use, when referencing your government. And yet that's exactly what it is. Because make no mistake, national safety is not the main drive behind this.

On a personal level, this is no more or less efficient than any intelligence techniques used 70 years ago. Yes, you can target someone specifically and destroy them, but it's no more efficient than sending two or three guys with dark lanterns to follow you around town. It's also extremely easy to protect yourself from this type of intrusion, should you really wish to. Easy, and very cost-effective.

On a national level, its industrial nature is completely counter-productive. Whatever useful information they have intercepted over the years, truly critical to national safety, I'm positive they could have obtained through other networks of informants and a firm presence on the ground. Higher risks, perhaps, but far less background noises to filter.

So the scandal is, once again, the fact that it's actually being done, for the sake of doing it. It annihilates the moral authority of a government, and exposes it to a permanent fracture with its population. While there was never any passion between people and state, you can easily tell the relationship has deteriorated quickly in the past twenty years. There is a long-term threat to this that is difficult to detail and predict. And that's what scares me. Not the threat it may or may not pose to my personal privacy.

Shralla
1st Mar 2014, 04:03
Let's see your junk then, you don't mind you said.

Well I don't want to get banned, but if you want sexy pics you could have just asked nicely from the beginning. =P


Additionally, not everybody knows how the internet works, children most notably don't know. They should be protected, safe especially in their own home.

I would think that children would be the ones least affected by this, being the only ones who likely have nothing to hide. Also children should know how the Internet works before they're allowed to use it unmonitored.

I really do understand where you're coming from. The problem is the Internet isn't really a closed network for communication like people think it is. It's a very open network for communication, one with chatter both meaningful and not accessible with little to no effort. It's a grievous waste of time on the government's part and a violation of expected privacy to be sure, but we can't expect to enforce those kinds of things this early on when this technology is still technically in its infancy. For the power of the Internet, it hasn't been around that long and only recently have laws and regulations begun to catch up with the ever-increasing pace of technology.

The problem is the Internet really is the most revolutionary thing to come about in a very long time, but the revolution has only just begun. Ultimately it will be our ability to communicate instantaneously with any other individual in the world that will define our government and laws, and things like this will no longer be an issue. In the meantime, all we can really do is liberally apply bandaids.

SageSavage
1st Mar 2014, 07:28
Well, I used to be somewhat of an activist for privacy and against censorship when I was younger. Sometime between 1997 and 2005 and much of what has been revealed by Snowden and Wikileaks was hardly news to me or anybody who was looking for that kind of information (some new aspects and the sheer scale still shocked me). Although I did manage to sensitize some people, my overall experience was that people don't want to believe and/or have worringly much faith in the authorities. At some point I grew so frustrated that I kind of resigned from the whole struggle. I'm afraid Chaos Computer Clubs' assessment was accurate when they postulated that "We Lost The War" (http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/static/t/r/a/Transcribe_We_Lost_The_War_1de1.html)!

Spyhopping
1st Mar 2014, 10:13
So what else are you willing to let other people do to you and your family? What if I come peer through your window and eavesdrop on your conversations? What about those with children? It combines rather sinisterly with the recent revelation of destroying reputations via the net also. And what about in 15 years time when technology is far more advanced?

Like I said, not registering.

I have always accepted that the internet isn't a place of privacy, so I suppose I am unmoved by all of this because I don't expect it anyway. I'm also reluctant to see this as an avalanche of privacy violations waiting to happen in my home. Privacy in my own home is a whole different level, and yes, it is important. I like to keep my personal life quiet if I can.

Still... when I visit my parent's house, in the back of my mind I am aware and oddly unconcerned that our conversations always lack a level of privacy. They live right on the road and pavement in a town, and as it's an old house they have no double glazing. As a result, people on the street can hear what we are saying when they walk past, and we do get the occasional nosy person who will peek into our bottom floor windows intrusively. I usually wave at them.

FrankCSIS
1st Mar 2014, 15:07
Although I did manage to sensitize some people, my overall experience was that people don't want to believe and/or have worringly much faith in the authorities. At some point I grew so frustrated that I kind of resigned from the whole struggle. I'm afraid Chaos Computer Clubs' assessment was accurate when they postulated that "We Lost The War" (http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/static/t/r/a/Transcribe_We_Lost_The_War_1de1.html)!

This whole situation is a double-edged sword if there ever was one, really. I don't think this "battle" can be won in the conventional sense, but people are reacting more than you might think. We've known about backdoor keys as early as the late 90's, Echelon became very real when the French announced how pissed they were to be excluded from it, and the lists of unwarranted expenses sporadically became available left and right. The effect is somewhat a lot more perverse than the authorities abusing this technology may suspect. For all the intel experts agencies may have in their ranks, they lack a good occidental sociologist.

What have we seen, in the past two decades or so? It used to be we didn't care what our politicians did in their private lives, at least up here in Canada. Since people are peeking in ours, we now see fit to peek in theirs. Police "mistakes" didn't concern the great white majority, but now that some police agency or another thinks they can intrude directly in the life of the white man, the majority feels police work needs to be scrutinised, and every incident creates a new outrage among the majority. We've started to see court verdicts being directly challenged by the streets or the media, forcing new trials. Every day, we hear new revelations about backdoor deals, bribes, and misappropriation of funds, directly from the public. Those shady deals have always existed, but the tolerance to it has completely eroded. People take pictures of their politicians in public, record their conversations, and share them online. This is all completely unprecedented, and it's not strictly due to the internet and the instant access to information.

Unwillingly, some agencies have started this, and I find it very hard to predict where it is going to lead. Everything I just wrote is good news, one way or another, but it can also result in a lot of wrongdoing. The state does have a role to play in some spheres of society, and every inch it loses in those spheres, other entities are very prompt to step in and work their magic.

Jito463
1st Mar 2014, 15:37
Police "mistakes" didn't concern the great white majority, but now that some police agency or another thinks they can intrude directly in the life of the white man

Any particular reason you decided to race-bait? This isn't a racism issue, it's a privacy issue.

FrankCSIS
1st Mar 2014, 15:46
No race-bait, here. The majority happens to be white in my society. The majority did not react to police issues the way some minorities used to. Now that the majority is pried upon, the majority scrutinises back and reacts. This is easily observable, and directly linked to the privacy issue. During the student strikes we've had two summers ago, cellphone footages of police interventions would surface online on a daily basis. The same kind of interventions other minorities have often complained about in the past, with little to no reaction from the voting majority. Since that summer, and a few other incidents, the entire structure of internal affairs and police-on-police investigations has been modified. This modification is unprecedented here, despite many calls from some minorities in the past.

So you see, it's all completely linked. Agencies spy on the majority, people decide they start to look further into the lives of the agencies and their government. Don't take my observation personally. I'm as white as the majority.

In comparison, in the 60's and 70's, the RCMP would spy on blacks, commies, gays, unions and other specific groups. The public knew about this. Journalists were outraged and documented those actions as best they could. With little effects on the population. But now the agencies have the means to do a similar control without discrimination, because it requires no footmen on the ground. With the effects I have described in my previous post. I'm sure they never anticipated this.

SageSavage
1st Mar 2014, 16:45
This is all completely unprecedented, and it's not strictly due to the internet and the instant access to information.

I think it mostly is due to the internet and the omnipresence of phones with cameras. That in itself is very much a double edged sword as it also evaded privacy and helped desensitizing to the ubiquitous presence of surveillance technology. The current situation would've been entirely unthinkable (outside of dystopian fiction) just 25 years ago.

Over here in Germany I really can't perceive any positive change in the general public regarding these issues. I rather feel that people are already bored by all things NSA/Snowden. Personally, I don't see the slightest chance of going back to less surveillance in our lives - quite the opposite really. I don't deny that like everything this too produced some positive effects but the looming threat of a police state is becoming more and more real and far outweighs those effects, imo.

FrankCSIS
1st Mar 2014, 17:09
I think it mostly is due to the internet and the omnipresence of phones with cameras

Chicken or the egg, I suppose. Still, had there been smartphones with cameras 30 years ago, would people in your society have had the balls to film a police intervention, or record their politicians? I can't possibly speak for Germany, but I know no Canadian would have dared to do this, nor would they have even thought it appropriate.

How many times have we heard the sentence if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about? No later than last week, the newly-elected mayor of Montreal paraphrased it in the debate for more CCTV cameras. This ridiculous sentence has worked well to justify new surveillance, but it has worked the other way around just as well. People feel the same way about their agencies and governments, even if only subconsciously. It's now perfectly ok to film a police intervention. If they do everything by the book, why should they worry about being filmed? Right? ;) Of course, we all know footage can be edited to sway public opinion, but hey, what's good for mommy is good for poppy.

This whole thing is degenerating slowly, and to requote Ian Malcolm (:D), no one stopped to think if they should. Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction, and all that jazz. The police state, as known in fiction, is unsustainable, even if the tech is available. The real result will be some nasty on-going tech/image war between various groups, as we're witnessing more and more today.

Another interesting trend comes from current and potential employers prying on the lives of employees outside of work, through Facebook or other networks. Do these guys really want to start this? Truly? Because really, boss, it will take me a week to find your mistress, your fetish, your gambling addiction, the escorts you call, the cocaine you sniff or the funds you steal. Glasshouse and rocks, you know...

-Neon-
2nd Mar 2014, 15:36
If anonymous hackers or government agencies wanna see my manboobs, who am I to deny them?
At least *someone* wants to see them. /foreveralone