dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1250
share rss forum feed

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

FBI: real-time Gmail, Google Voice, and Dropbox wiretapping

FBI: real-time Gmail, Google Voice, and Dropbox wiretapping a “top priority” for 2013.

said by FBI’s general council Andrew Weissman :

The FBI’s general council Andrew Weissman told the American Bar Association that real time snooping on Gmail, Google Voice, and Dropbox are among the agency’s “top priorities” for 2013.

I guess it's a direct result of over-inflated budget, they always manage to have...

And unfortunately, that doesn't end here. Read:

What the FBI wants is for private companies to install back-door mechanisms specifically so that that the government can spy on conversations within their products.

Now, remind me. How do they call convergence of big corporations with government?..
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

Related: Spying On Your Gmail and Google Voice Messages is a “Top Priority” for the FBI @Android News.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...



ph0enix

join:2013-04-26
reply to OZO

Hmmm expect the fact that this story makes everyone scary, it's becoming normal. A few months ago I switched my email from Gmail to an iCloud email (@me.com) for the same issue, privacy. Google has a terrible history in this part and the relation to ads.

Let's be clear, FBI has access to everything and they can access anything at anytime. it's always the same reason that will force any service provider to say okay: "national security". To be honest, none of the tech companies out there can be trusted and we will never know if our data is accessed by someone else. Remember when Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and more found out that hackers are in their networks for months? none of them declared any removed/copied info but who knows? effects might be yet more terrible.

Anyway, Gmail is powerful but in terms of privacy, sorry, it's in the back seat. I don't trust Apple either but at least, they don't use ads and they do not skim my emails to show "related ads".

One of the comments on the article you shared by "Guest1012" summarises it all:

quote:
Privacy died a long time ago
My 2 cents!


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

1 recommendation

reply to OZO

Maybe folks need to rethink what "privacy" means in practical terms. If it travels by any third-party communications medium, perhaps people ought not to view it as "private" in any meaningful way... unless, of course, they robustly encrypt the traffic themselves, independent of the comm and terminal mechanisms. In which case, they ought to also assume that the encrypted traffic will draw its own special attention, just by virtue of being encrypted. If you want it to be truly "private", you may have to think in terms of handing it directly and physically to the recipient, with no middle-men involved. Otherwise, employ independent, robust encryption over ordinary channels and risk the attention it may well draw. Americans' Constitutional rights notwithstanding, as technology and intrusiveness (both governmental and corporate) expand relentlessly, these may end up being the only trustworthy ways to go. Just sayin'...
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville


Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1
reply to ph0enix

said by ph0enix:

... FBI has access to everything and they can access anything at anytime. it's always the same reason that will force any service provider to say okay: "national security".

What about overseas providers? I think overseas options will appear, especially a choice besides Skype if Skype customers, especially overseas customers believe that the U.S. FBI can monitor their conversations.


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5
reply to OZO

Any US based company will follow US laws. So one could pay foreign company for some services. If you want to circumvent US laws, I have to ask why are you living and paying taxes in the US. Cmon Join the Borg. and stop the flow of additional revenue outside the US.


Frodo

join:2006-05-05
kudos:1

said by Anav:

Cmon Join the Borg. and stop the flow of additional revenue outside the US.

That might appeal to US internet users, but the majority of internet users are not U.S. citizens.
»www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

It is big brother regulations of the type proposed by the FBI that will drive revenue outside the U.S.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to OZO

To keep a realistic perspective, a great many of those non-US citizen users of the Internet live in regions with their own local snooping already going on by their powers-that-be... perhaps the great majority of such users. Freedom and privacy are rare things indeed in this world - and perhaps becoming more rare with each passing week. That's why those of us who have not had to deal with such intrusiveness in the past now fight tooth and claw against each new intrusion. But it's a seemingly uphill battle... and at times, I fear we're steadily losing ground. This is one of those times...
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville



ph0enix

join:2013-04-26
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

Maybe folks need to rethink what "privacy" means in practical terms. If it travels by any third-party communications medium, perhaps people ought not to view it as "private" in any meaningful way... unless, of course, they robustly encrypt the traffic themselves, independent of the comm and terminal mechanisms. In which case, they ought to also assume that the encrypted traffic will draw its own special attention, just by virtue of being encrypted. If you want it to be truly "private", you may have to think in terms of handing it directly and physically to the recipient, with no middle-men involved. Otherwise, employ independent, robust encryption over ordinary channels and risk the attention it may well draw. Americans' Constitutional rights notwithstanding, as technology and intrusiveness (both governmental and corporate) expand relentlessly, these may end up being the only trustworthy ways to go. Just saying'...

IMHO, I think the difference between privacy and secrecy is pretty clear. As for privacy which is our main topic and it's why every single service provider is attaching ToS, Privacy Statement, etc.

National security of each country is a concern for everyone in that country but when any party want to get access the user must be informed. It's like GTR that Google publishes frequently (started to do this) »www.google.com/transparencyrepor···equests/ I believe that the user must be at least notified and informed of this action to find after years that my account has been accessed and my data was copied/transferred for "INVESTIGATION" – I am assuming the access is terminated.

It's a pretty complicated issue that a forum discussion will never nail it. Law, rules, country-based rules, etc are all involved and study is a must to determine the legal vs. illegal.
--
Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bullet-proof.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by ph0enix:

... IMHO, I think the difference between privacy and secrecy is pretty clear. As for privacy which is our main topic and it's why every single service provider is attaching ToS, Privacy Statement, etc.

National security of each country is a concern for everyone in that country but when any party want to get access the user must be informed. It's like GTR that Google publishes frequently (started to do this) »www.google.com/transparencyrepor···equests/ I believe that the user must be at least notified and informed of this action to find after years that my account has been accessed and my data was copied/transferred for "INVESTIGATION" – I am assuming the access is terminated.

It's a pretty complicated issue that a forum discussion will never nail it. Law, rules, country-based rules, etc are all involved and study is a must to determine the legal vs. illegal.

I don't agree that there's a "pretty clear" difference between privacy and secrecy. In the dictionary (Merrian-Webster), the second meaning of "privacy" is "secrecy". The first meaning is "the state/quality of being apart from others". If I wish information to be kept private, I want it to not be shared with others (beyond my intended recipient, if any). That's identical to what occurs if I wish information to be kept secret.

The problem comes when somebody outside of whom I wish information to be shared manages to penetrate my privacy/secrecy and compromises it. And I may be just as adamant that my personal messages or data not be subject to unauthorized access as a military officer is that his military secrets be held secure against unauthorized access. While you or somebody else might believe his secrets are more important than mine, that is purely a quality assessment made by an "outsider" to both situations.

As regards your comment that on national security issues, the person being monitored must be informed, that is simply not true. Obtaining a warrant over national security issues does not, in most cases, result in the target being informed (and even then, not until after-the-fact when a case against him is brought... and in those cases, the full details discovered in the penetration may be sealed from him). In many cases, the authorities are currently lobbying on various fronts for legal authority for (and in reality even now performing without such authority) multitudinous warrantless wiretaps... as witness the constant appearance of related threads in this and similar forums, as well as in the news. And the subjects of those wiretaps never find out what information about them or from them has found its way into 3-letter agency files - if and until the hammer falls in some future scenario perhaps not even on the horizon today. This is why I made the point that if there is information you want kept private (or secret) from prying eyes and future misinterpretation, that responsibility rests with you to independently encrypt it - or forgo putting it online.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2
reply to Blackbird

said by Blackbird:

If it travels by any third-party communications medium, perhaps people ought not to view it as "private" in any meaningful way...

+1

If it's electronic it's being monitored. The genie is out of the bottle there

The alternatives are

• Ignore it and be a sheeple. After all who wants to monitor little ol' you. You have nothing to hide.

• Limit what you do/say and use encryption where available.

• Heavily encrypt everything and use offshore proxies.

• Live in a shack a la Ted Kaczynski.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by StuartMW:

...The alternatives are
...
• Live in a shack a la Ted Kaczynski.

Uhmm... that 4th alternative didn't work out too good for Ted, as I recall...
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

True but he was an actual terrorist. Still his "off the grid" lifestyle kept him hidden for a long time. It was his brother that turned him in. The Feds may've never found him otherwise.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!



vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Frodo

said by Frodo:

What about overseas providers?

What about 'em? What makes you think the overseas government isn't watching the bits flow?
--
The new Oldsmobiles are in early this year!


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to StuartMW

said by StuartMW:

• Heavily encrypt everything and use offshore proxies.

I think the authorities over-stepping their bounds risks exactly that. While people using encrypted e-mail and voice chat is rare now, I can at least imagine where it would be the norm.

Suppose 90% of gmail traffic were highly encrypted? A message being encrypted wouldn't even stick out as abnormal and worthy of scrutiny, if it were the norm, rather than the exception.

The insane thing to me is this whole red herring of "going dark" with regard to communication. The Government had to get a warrant to tap your phones. And they similarly needed one to open your mail.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong
Expand your moderator at work