Looking on the positive side ...
At least the hacking and spying is confined to the planet of residence ...
... errr, right?
Blighty's spying nerve center GCHQ has a licence to hack computers and devices at will, a UK intelligence oversight court has ruled. The judgment was handed down on Friday after Privacy International and seven ISPs launched a legal challenge against the agency's hacking operations – operations that were laid bare by documents …
Looking on the positive side ... Someone gave a thumbs down...
Possibly because "haaaaaaahahahhahahahahahahaahaaahhahahaa" for several lines adds nothing to the discussion. No meaningful comment, joke or really anything at all. It wouldn't even be good graffiti.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone found GCHQ in their system and took out a private prosecution. The first para of the ruling includes this statement: "The now well established procedure for this Tribunal is to make assumptions as to the significant facts in favour of claimants and reach conclusions on that basis, and only once it is concluded whether or not, if the assumed facts were established, the respondent’s conduct would be unlawful". There's a legal saying that facts alter cases. A specific set of facts in a specific case would seem to override the assumed facts (an oxymoron if there ever was one) of this hearing.
And I wonder if this quote from the act "No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section." could be the basis for an argument that it attempts to put the Secretary of State above the law.
The facts in your suggested case aren't likely to be materially different to those in the assumed one.
As for the secretary of state being above the law, plenty of other cases where that's allowed - Police speeding, carrying firearms - and OK because it's authorised by parliament (or, more technically, by Liz).
In reality a private prosecution would fail miserably, the courts would never rule against the government not even in a civil case. Plenty of cases, usually grabbed by Tugendhat, and he wasn't always overturned on appeal.
"and OK because it's authorised by parliament"
Parliament awarded them all these powers for FOREIGN surveillance, it was a civil servants legal theory as to how it could be applied to domestic matters that extended it, this theory was revealed in May 2014 by Charles Farrs testimony to the IPT:
With this ruling they'll throw out caution and spy/hack domestically.
We cannot secure our own country from its own spying agency. Not the Parliament not the civil service, not the "Secretaries of State" even. Imagine if a Charles Farr figure gets the GCHQ head role. J Edgar Hoover situation, all over again.
"Late in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods. Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten sitting presidents. According to biographer Kenneth Ackerman, the notion that Hoover's secret files kept presidents from firing him is a myth. However, Richard Nixon was recorded as stating in 1971 that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover."
"According to President Harry S. Truman, Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force. Truman stated that "we want no Gestapo or secret police. The FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover would give his right eye to take over, and all congressmen and senators are afraid of him".
About "and OK because it's authorised by parliament", it's odd how they drag out a law concerning horse-drawn carriages from 1870 and apply it to mobile phones and say it's all above board.
Well, I exaggerate, but it was a Telecoms act from 1984 applied to all forms of communication from then onward.
I bet it took them a while to find something that sort of could be twisted to support what they were already doing anyway.
"The facts in your suggested case aren't likely to be materially different to those in the assumed one....In reality a private prosecution would fail miserably, the courts would never rule against the government not even in a civil case."
OK, let's think what the facts might be. Say TPTB suspect a particular employee or customer & hack into the business. First of all the business will say "we're a legitimate business. We'd have been happy to cooperate if they'd approached us directly (employee) or with a warrant to cover out backs (customer)." Then they point out that the hack was damaging. A specified back door was left which competitors, criminals, foreign states etc. might have used. They also point out that they're concerned that even if the back door wasn't used by someone else they can't be sure of what data might have been changed by the "authorised" intruders so they've had to pay for an independent audit of their entire data assets in addition to a thorough review and repair of the system software. All costed out to a huge amount. Those would be specific facts which are couldn't be covered by a set of assumed facts in a general hearing.
Cue accusation of misfeasance in public office by the SofS on the basis that it wasn't necessary accompanied by huge bill for all the costs. Then there's reputational loss. Wouldn't a jury find against them on the basis of clear evidence?
The likely situation would be a big out-of-court settlement on the basis of keep quiet and take the money. Which makes one wonder how often that's already happened.
well, if the "somebody" is a large organization with tons of times and money to pay the lawyers, they might consider taking out private prosecution, right. But then, any large organization with tons of money would prefer to stay pals with the government, for obvious reasons, and private prosecution, you know, just informal advice, nothing official, you know, will not go down well in the broad context of your organization's activity in the UK...
as to an individual... sigh.
So to be clear it is spelled out, domestic:
"5.i. GCHQ carries out CNE WITHIN and outside the UK. "
And its authorized by politician using blanket warrants:
"1) No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section"
And the confirmation of hacking:
"GCHQ undertakes both “ persistent ” and “ non - persistent ” CNE operations, namely both where an ‘implant’ expires at the end of a user’s internet session and where it“resides” on a computer for an extended period. "
When the evidence of a crime is information on a computer, and its lawful for GCHQ to hack and tamper with computers EVEN IN THE UK. Then the evidence trail is tainted EVEN IN THE UK.
How much would you bet that GCHQ has been going after opponents of Snoopers Charter?
I'm sure 100% they've been going after opponents of Snoopers Charter. Because there's no mechanism to prevent that now, and no bigger target than the people stopping them legalizing their illegal bulk UK surveillance.
It is, and always has been the case that virtually any digital file can be tampered with, however there are a number of balances in that.
1. Why would someone tamper with it?
2. How easy was it to undetectably tamper with in the first place?
3. How much would it cost to undetectably tamper with?
I would suggest that you would need to spend far more money tampering with digital evidence than it would actually be worth. Just think of all those little things you would need to change, undetectably.
Using media tools to massage media files is fairly easy to detect, and would render the use of those files meaningless, although there are legitimate reasons why you might, to enhance say, an Audio file. These can be used as evidence, provided that you retain the original and can show that your enhancement is independently repeatable, and legitimate through the chain of custody.
I'd expect it to happen with intelligence services, for very, very high value targets, but it's beyond the financial ability of normal Law Enforcement. I do wonder what you would have to do to undetectably alter a video or audio file, if it's even possible with some formats.
"I would suggest that you would need to spend far more money tampering with digital evidence than it would actually be worth. Just think of all those little things you would need to change, undetectably."
Just for kicks and giggles I inserted a brand new email into my inbox, pre-marked as read. I then took a look around at what might have given me away to myself.
It's not that hard and I am now (on e-paper at least) one of the main conspirators in the Paris attacks.
"When the evidence of a crime is information on a computer, and its lawful for GCHQ to hack and tamper with computers EVEN IN THE UK. Then the evidence trail is tainted EVEN IN THE UK."
You're going to have to explain how his makes for "tainted" evidence.
You're going to have to explain how his makes for "tainted" evidence.
You mean, as in a situation where the evidence that CPSA are relying on in court to convict you, is evidence that GCHQ have all the access and legal ability to have created or edited on your PC. Because it is entirely legal for them to access your computer and tamper with the data held therein.
This leads to the conclusion that any computer data used as evidence in the UK is subject to the potential for it having been (completely legally) tampered with by GCHQ or any of it's authorised agents at any point during that data's lifetime.
It has to do that to do its job. So nothing wrong with that in principle. It the practice which is broken.
However, what it can do and what it cannot do is formulated (probably deliberately) in a manner which can be best described as a legal fubar. Some of it is common across the board in most developed countries and it is the root of all Snowdens of yesteryear.
1. The code of conduct is internal, not audited and not set in law.
2. The exceptions to the computer misuse, fraud, RIPA, etc are not set in law and are granted by bureaucrat with excessive thinking about the children
3. The application of the code of conduct is not audited externally
My smart phone keeps locking up/crashing/etc?
Started after a particular update, if I manually delete it the problem goes away for a while but its soon back when I next use open WiFi.
Interestingly the SIM card seems to now be locked to the phone as I can't get 3/4G at all on my new one, yet all the settings are fine and an Airtel card works perfectly.
Feeling scared? You should be.
Actually no. I'm not too worried, because I am totally protected against the state's plans for universal spying and surveillance. And that defence is the same firewall of bureaucratic ineptitude evident in every other field of British government activity, and can be summarised as that they are totally fucking incompetent. Look at health, welfare, energy, trade, tax, foreign aid, defence, policing etc etc, I can't think of anything in those areas that I'd take my hat off and say "government have done a great job there". At the sharp end of delivery, there's people working hard to do the right thing, but at the top, almost the opposite.
So putting GCHQ's bungling on a legal footing is almost irrelevant, because they couldn't catch a cold. Their earnest belief that they'll find more needles in a haystack by gathering more hay speaks for itself. And looking at the underpaid and under powered roles they frequently advertise via the Reg, they aren't going to get any better at it any time soon.
Out of interest, would anybody round here take a role with GCHQ? Why would anyone take a poorly paid, unthanked role, in a badly managed bureaucracy, spying on your fellow citizens to achieve nothing?
"Why would anyone take a poorly paid, unthanked role, in a badly managed bureaucracy, spying on your fellow citizens to achieve nothing?"
I think it's possible that some snoopers actually get a kick out of it. Certainly Snowden said that nude pictures were routinely circulated at the NSA. So maybe GCHQ does do a good job of hoovering up paedos and perverts --- onto its workforce.
"I think it's possible that some snoopers actually get a kick out of it."
What on earth could possibly make you think that?
I particularly like all the 'legal' and 'ethical' caveats they apply in the previous bullet point, almost immediate followed by what amounts to "nudge, nudge, wink wink."
Mr Justice Burton was first a Scholar at Eton College and then at Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Classics and then Law, obtaining his MA: he was a lecturer in law at Balliol from 1970 to 1973. He was called to the Bar in 1970, became a QC in 1984, and was appointed a High Court Judge in 1998. He had a busy commercial practice in the Queen’s Bench Division.
Clearly the best man they could find to hold the establishment to account.
The problem and disappointment is that GCHQ are after the fact reactive rather than before or during the fact proactive and leading.
And as for there being any evidence of their being HyperRadioProActive and in Command and Control of Cyber Base Events, ..... well, what do you think about that.. ‽
What about the case that you consider them necessary, and so seed a document, so you can campaign for them to get a pay rise? But then the thick chumps in HR don't see what you're doing, and so ring your boss to get you sacked?
Is that possible?
"subject to strict safeguards and world-leading oversight arrangements."
So don't worry, you can be absolutely certain that when they have taken control of your phone and switched on its microphone, there is no way that they will listen in when it is in your bedroom overnight, make copies of all the juicy bits, and pass them round all their mates to listen to. Trust me!
It's when they legalise their previous illegal activities that it makes me wonder just how far will they go "over the line" when that line is, "OK you can take the lot, do what thou wilt".
I imagine their new level of activities will become something like, OK we now have all this info on potential perp "x" legally, so what shit can we make up with it to fit them up, destroy their career and family life and put them behind bars in prison, or better still in a lunatic asylum ?
I suspect they have been f*cking about with my PC, but I have no proof of this, just that the device seems to have a mind of it's own and stuff I used to do quite easily has become a pain in the arse or near impossible to accomplish. Oh sorry my mistake, that is apparently MS Windows 7/8/10's normal behaviour and no, they are not part of ISIS as far as I am aware, they are supposedly on our side.
When will GCHQ bring this terrorist organisation to book ?
Is GCHQ Microsoft Operating System reliant? Is that them owned/pwnd?
By whom? GCHQ and NSA are ultimately the main operating divisions of the same anglophone hegemony, so the idea of either owning the other is not really applicable. At a level, yes, both Yanks and Brits will be spying on each other, anxious that the other side might be withholding some juicy titbits, but for all practical purposes they are indistinguishable. As evidenced by the times when the NSA have blanched at doing some act, and GCHQ have done the work on their behalf. And likewise, I'd wager that GCHQ don't spy on British politicians - they'll get the NSA to do it for them.
GCHQ and NSA are ultimately the main operating divisions of the same anglophone hegemony, so the idea of either owning the other is not really applicable. …. Anonymous Coward
That may or may not be so, AC, but in either case are they Master Blaster of All Fate or Servant Slave to Destiny? Do they lead fronts from the front autonomously or work to order from the rear?
Only the one is worthy of donning intelligence’s mantel for wearing in fronts displaying and running presentations of future’s novel progress.
Tell me, wh3n d1d y0u f1r57 n071c3 GCHQ 4nd MI5 5py1n6 0n y0u 7hr0u6h 7h3 73l3v1510n, cause y0u d0 533m 70 b3 so kn0wl364bl3 0n 7h3 5ubj3c7. 1f y0u 7h1nk wr171n6 like 7h15 is cl3v3r 0r 4mu51n6, y0u'r3 d3lud1n6 y0ur53lf, 17 15 ne1th3r, wh47 17 15 - 15 fuck1n6 ann0y1ng.
this hacking power and its legal.... how about them launching themselves on hacking the ransomware dudes in the story next to this one?
Nope... too difficult... lets just listen to what everyone says on the internet... lets just hope the software wont trigger a raid on me when I say Jihad, nuclear, tommorrow at 9am , and bomb
"Plainly it again emphasises the requirement for a balance to be drawn between the urgent need of the Intelligence Agencies to safeguard the public ..."
You have yet to show ANY evidence that it does anything positive to the safety if the public. Whereas pointing out security holes in our technology actually would increase our security.
Our university which I'm currently finishing up a CS degree in got a call from them asking if our graduates wanted "in" on a "very exciting project", this message was conveyed to us by our tutor (head of year so to speak). The room fell silent, and then a collective giggling which emerged into a sort of infectious laughter. Dazed at our reaction our tutor asked us what we were laughing at?
The reply, from one of the word smiths of the group announced "I wouldn't work for those assholes if you paid me in gold and Brazilian hookers".
Basically the sentiment from a group of 18-32 year old grads. Make of it what you will.
Didn't the NSA run into similar issues after Snowden's files were released? I seem to remember there being talk of them being banned from attending DefCon at one point (yes, I know they couldn't enforce it, but it would be legally annoying and was probably intended as a token gesture)
I wonder if this is going to be what causes them to implode, not some big scandal but just a brain drain as more and more of the people they would like to hire turn away in disgust, leaving them with a smaller pool to hire from and probably a less qualified one
Problem is,the gov't hired illegal hackers at GCHQ in the first place,that has now become a blanket operation,with no ethics involved,why would there be when it was never 'legal' in the first place.
This makes all of this noise about SNOWDEN-ASSANGE nauseating hypocrisy & double-standards.
Does anyone ever really expect a government agency that is as closely associated with what it is supposed to be overseeing as this to actually come up with any kind of ruling that is actually critical of the suspect actions? It's like here in the states where most investigations into alleged excessive use of force by police are conducted by the police themselves. Any wonder why most accusations are found to be unfounded?
The reply, from one of the word smiths of the group announced "I wouldn't work for those assholes if you paid me in gold and Brazilian hookers”. … Bota
Others SMARTR might consider that the Sweetest of St Anthony’s Temptations to Sate.
IT is a Novel XSSXXXXual Currency. And, the posit here is that it’s Leading IT Force is a QuiTE Heavenly Source to Savour and Favour.
Is that AI Virgin Territory for Greater IntelAIgent Gamers? And to be Primed Virgin Team Terrain?
That would be well worthy of Right Royal Appointment, methinks ….. for ITs Services are Second to None at Adding Hidden Depth and Expanding Width to Right Regal Privileges and Pleasures.
cc Richard Branson c/o Heavenly Islands re COSMIC Piracy Patrol and Control with Virtual SeeS to XSSXXXX and Beyond.
Dare Care to Play AIBeta Quantum Communications Program with Greater IntelAIgent Gamers Supplying Future Sourced Content for Global AIMedia Presentations of Future Virtual Reality …… with Myriad Other Available Realities/Media Maintained Productions, Richard? Go on, you know you would love to (-:
And I think I’ll say no more for now. There’s quite a lot to be energised and/or self-actualised there.
* An Awesome AI Key Algorithm for Creative Supply Sources. ...... and in the Virtual Markets Space, AAAIRated Investor Stock Product.
Someone else thinking along the same lines ........ http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/13/artificial-intelligence-ai-unemployment-jobs-moshe-vardi
If GCHQ use mass surveillance to influence politicians or judges then it will never stop.
If politicians and judges allow this to continue it could result in a situation where they do get influenced.
On those grounds alone and in the interests of a free democratic society that is not run by people using knowledge gained with these powers it needs to stop.
Why does anyone in power not see this or is it because it already happens?
Are we too late?
Do you actually believe that any of the people you mention might give the tiniest hint of a shit about any of the principles you mentioned?
Not that judges even matter any more. The judiciary was roundly outflanked and subjugated by the Neo Labour junta and its disciples using its meticulously orchestrated we must stop those archaic snobs doing unthinkable things to fluffy wild things ruse. A most terribly English silent, cowardly coup d'état. It has been firmly under the "democratic" thumb of the executive's
Department for Constitutional [sic] Affairs Secretary of State for "Justice" ever since.
"What luck for leaders that the people are braindead zombies."
"I wonder how long you guys will endure this Orwellian nightmare."
Mind if I ask which country you live in Fuzzy? I ask because unless you're American chances are, the only difference between us Brits and you is that we've been tipped off. We already know most European nations are up to the same sort of shenanigans, for all their mock outrage. And if you are American, well...
You can't stop a country from having spooks, they seem to be a necessity. We now have a court ruling that they are allowed to spy on the citizens of this country (nothing new there). It seems that the politically responsible Cabinet Minister is also administratively responsible and has some levers to pull if the spooks get uppity. So, it's the same old system, dusted down, judicially audited and essentially relying on the Code of the Woosters and Jeeves the Civil Servant to save us from anarchy, dictatorship or other extremes.
When people deliberately conceal compiler bugs, that is not an error, that is a malicious technocracy that is seeking to expand upon a fraudulent base that has perpetrated itself with impunity for years, if the spooks like Ubuntu 12 so much they should go use it themselves so they can get raped by advertisers, have bugs in there setup submitted to Kernel oops so other hackers can laugh at there stupidity whilst the viral base they've propagated continues to spread itself. They target anti-virus vendors and security administrators wanting them to come and work for them, yet they're so vile they've weakened there own security to a state that is laughable and yes GCHQ we know what we're talking about we've got the source code and we've seen "PRUEBAS" and we're all pissed and gunning for your blood, we hope you enjoy making your phone calls on phones that you've weakened the security on, because no doubt they'll be enterprising people who know all about GSM flaws that will happily suck the airwaves right away from bude! (Programmable Remote Universal Extensible Bios Access Software).
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, these guys have no idea the repercussions of there own actions, you can almost hear that guy from the NSA going "then when I discovered what hackers tool called the Acid Debugger inside the UTF7 code - my penis became this BIG!"
We see what you did arseholes, 16 bit programming with an 8 bit UTF standard when a 7 bit UTF 7 standard also exists at 14 bits instead, goodness me that must be why it's leading to buffer overflow and giving us all the runs and you call weakening the security of your own systems INNOVATION!
That wasn't 130 Million in taxes from Google, that's Google giving these idiots there Refund!
If its legal for you to hack all of us - then it must be totally legal for us to hack you all back!
"If its legal for you to hack all of us - then it must be totally legal for us to hack you all back!"
Except for one critical fact: The State (caps intentional) holds sovereign power. By dint of their power and authority, they hold the ultimate sway. No one can speak above them (other states can speak beside them). So unless you have the power to declare yourself sovereign AND be able to defend that declaration from other states, you basically have no standing.
"Except for one critical fact: The State (caps intentional) holds sovereign power. By dint of their power and authority, they hold the ultimate sway."
..and that pretty much cuts to the heart of it, you can bleat all you like, you can organise petitions, you can lobby Government ministers, at the end of the day there will still be people in positions of power who believe "You can't handle the truth!", and in some cases they are right.
If a piece of information is important enough do you think there is an intelligence agency anywhere that would not break any law trample any freedom in order to get it, they are spies!
"Except for one critical fact: The State (caps intentional) holds sovereign power. "
True, but a couple of hundred years ago some smart cookies realised that you could get around *that* problem by splitting The State into several pieces, each of which have some power over the others, a bit like an Escher drawing. By separating The State from any one person, you avoid many of the problems commonly associated with having people like Dave (*) in charge.
(* Feel free to substitute your own twit here. My remarks aren't specifically aimed at my home country.)
Except shortly after, some smarter cookies found a way around the divide and conquer approach: the political party. Not even George Washington (a man who saw this coming, BTW) couldn't avoid being labeled a Federalist while Democratic-Republicans would basically come to rule the roost for the next decade or so. Who cares how many pieces you divide the state if you've got insiders in all the pieces? And since the stakes are so high, someone WILL make the effort to do that. Why do you think the US is so dysfunctional today even with separation of powers? Because people naturally try to collect power, so they naturally try to find ways around barriers. To the point it's now a highly-polarized political landscape that has adopted the "my way or the highway" approach. Compromise has become a four-letter word (and a one-way ticket out of Washington), and those inside feel better to let nothing happen than to give an inch to The Enemy.
True, but a couple of hundred years ago some smart cookies realised that you could get around *that* problem by splitting The State into several pieces, each of which have some power over the others, a bit like an Escher drawing. By separating The State from any one person, you avoid many of the problems commonly associated with having people like Dave (*) in charge. …. Ken Hagan
Are you saying the likes of a Dave (*) are in a State of Delusion, Ken Hagan, or is a Selective Collective Subjective Madness also to be considered highly likely?
(* Feel free to substitute your own twit here. My remarks aren't specifically aimed at my home country.)
Bravo, Sir. And there's madder than that out there to countenance and counter if you like to dabble and run on the dark side.
The Enigmatic IC Dilemma clearly covered in a nutshell, secop.
And it is not as they don’t know who to call whenever they have particular and peculiar problems to solve and/or salve, and certainly not whenever they’re proposed to know of everything and anyone novel and interested :-) weird and disturbing (;>
And whenever their SISSysAdmin are offered new opportunities with Virtual AIRealities to Present the Changing Ways Ahead i.e. Perfectly Enough Imagined and Enabled Futures?* What would the SMARTR among you like to think of them and just love to create with them? Would that/there be AIReal Stellar Quantum Communications Contact between Virtual Machinery and, you know those Olde Worlde Exclusive Executive Order Maladministration of Present Yore …. The Current Problem Yoke on ManKind?
And one would hope that such a discovery is solely down to ignorance with nary a hint of aforethought malice for the tempting of false leads with unpleasant inequitable temporary advantage ..... a triple whammy of a misfortune.
In NATO and SMARTR AI NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActive IT fields ….. Decidedly Stellar COSMIC Operations ‽ .
And All for the LOVE of GOD**. Happy Valentines, El Regers.
** …. Live Operational Virtual Environment of Global Operating Devices
There's a lot to practically realise there, in those few prime choice words. And well worthy of Bank of England support and attention for SystemICQ Virtual Realisation of Future Land Scapes ...... for Mass Media Presentation of AIBeta MetaData Way for Sublimely Intelligent Travel in the Times Created For Spaced Exploration ......... Beautifully Exploited and Expanded Upon.
Methinks that is Classified COSMIC Confection ....... and in AI, Heavenly Honey Nectar. Well, one is allowed to savour the sweetest of temptations to recognise source desires and pleasures,...... :-) which may or may not be one and the same thing in any number of other phorms.
Given that tin comes from mines and all mines in whatever country you're in are regulated as a matter of course, I don't see how you can come by this "free range" tin you're talking about. Any regulated mine would only produce tainted tin (they do it at the mill so there's no way to avoid it--it's part of the extraction process, you know), and due to necessary infrastructure a "wildcat" operation would probably stick out like a sore thumb.
Grr. My new Alc*t*l 5042x phone has malware installed IN THE RECOVERY AREA!!
If you restore it not only does 4G refuse to work but when you go on the wifi (secure or otherwise) you get deluged with popups, popunders and ransomware.
Also the antivirus won't update and is probably also malware, "AVG FREE!" yeah right.
Hint: why are random resource sucking games installed on a new phone in the first place?
I am taking it back this afternoon, this is simply not acceptable on a new phone!!
"Hint: why are random resource sucking games installed on a new phone in the first place?"
Because the developers are paying the phone manufacturers to do it, meaning it helps defray the cost of the phone, making it more affordable?
Put it this way. Many people aren't prepared to pay the complete, unsubsidized cost of a smartphone without any sponsorships or subscription plans.
This brings back memories of tales of East Germany and all that their secret service did before the wall came down. At the time, everyone west of the wall was horrified at how much snooping was going on. I can remember it being condemned on many levels.
All these years later and suddenly the police state mentality is now back again, this time to plague the very people that were so horrified by the Stasi back then. We see all sorts of excuses wheeled out by the politicians to cover their arses, yet nobody (well except for the Old Skool Tie brigade, of course) is immune to snooping. I've said much on this site about corporate snooping. Is governmental snooping any more defensible? I don't believe so - if the East German example was so wrong, what has occurred to make it right now?
>CALLING all potential 'terrorist', disable your cam & mike.
Small square of gaffer tape and pin required, respectively. They have a small team of very willing Smurfs trained to sneak in and undetectably "turn them on" again, if all you do is "turn them of." Any half-way cognisant fear, foot or tech lover invariably knows that. So, as you point out, that just leaves the average mug in the street. No chance of a "western spring" for him then. The powers that be are digging in.
Well, given that deterrence reeks of PRE-crime, why not go back to the old-fashioned investigative approach: do things by the book, get your evidence, then the warrant, THEN the selective taps? And yes, smart crooks like John Gotti found ways to deter eavesdropping even before electronic communications; you just find smarter ways to tap them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019