Wikileaks Exposes CIA Hacking Tools

For some reason, most news outlets are going very light on the CIA hack details, as if they are afraid or something.

The register has an article up today with a few better details, but still not a ton. It's all new I guess, and they need time to dig through the data. Hopefully a comprehensive article with details will come out sooner or later. Maybe the Guardian? That stuff is hard work though. I know I don't have the time to play investigative journalist and dig through thousands of pages full of intelligence community jargon.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Only 1 flaw in your plan. CIA pays your $50,000 for the hole. Russians,r Chinese, North Koreans, or Iranians pay you $150,000.

Hopefully a hacker will be ethical and choose his host country. But we can't guarantee that sadly.

I still think the air gapped + white list approach is the best way. While white listing can be subject to IP spoofing & man in the middle attacks, if the communications are always hand shook with a mathematical challenge to verify the machine is valid, (each machine with it's own unique mathematical challenge response key) outside threats could be cut down.

Of course that would knee cap everyone at work from visiting places like msdn, yahoo, or gmail. But if you are in a secure facility, you shouldn't be visiting those places any way.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The hole is created for a reason and may not actually represent a real world system. It's an exercise, "how would you deal with this?" Just seeing how the guy goes about attacking a system is a learning experience for the government. I'm not worried if some guy wants to sell his services to a higher bidder, he can rot in prison when they catch him.

As for your security recommendations, that's actually what the DoD's classified networks are, air-gapped systems on a networked and global scale. An entire enterprise network that is air-gapped.
 
All this wasted money...

Instead of minority report we get captain hindsight. You see when you collect everything you have nothing.
 
torvaldsnvidia-640x424.jpg
 
Hypergreatthing said:
I've been told by CNN that checking out wikileaks and their releases is illegal and i must wait for the reporters from CNN to disseminate that kind of information.
Click to expand...

They use to say CNN was the Clinton News Network, but I'm thinking the CIA News Network is more appropriate, these days.
 
The real story in this leak so far, IMHO, is UMBRAGE (as well as the hoarding of 0days which they're prohibited from doing).

We've known for sure that our governments been unconstitutionally spying on us and lying to us about it (and their ability to do so) for years. The snippets about listening devices shouldn't surprise anyone that's been paying attention.

With UMBRAGE though, they have the ability to hack anyone and pin it on a completely different entity (like Russia... how convenient). With these tools and documentation so loosely secured, who knows who else, outside the government... and even rogue elements inside the government, has access to this stuff? That revelation makes 'fingerprinting' a nation behind a hack 100% completely impossible not to mention giving the CIA (and now anyone else with access to these tools) the ability to frame a nation that they may not like.

Pandoras box
 
dr.stevil said:
We've known for sure that our governments been unconstitutionally spying on us and lying to us about it (and their ability to do so) for years. The snippets about listening devices shouldn't surprise anyone that's been paying attention.
Click to expand...
Many, many, decades.

JFK tried to challenge the CIA after disasters like the Bay of Pigs... look how that worked out for him. Shadow government wasn't so happy about that.
 
dr.stevil said:
The real story in this leak so far, IMHO, ..............
Click to expand...


Nooo, the real problem is way too many people who think they know what they are talking about. You say the government was spying on you unconstitutionally, but they weren't, and in fact, you don't know what they were and weren't doing.

They were collecting bulk telephone meta-data, and that was determined to be unconstitutional, but that was not in fact spying. There is nothing about that data that in and of itself equates to spying and it's purpose was to identify other phone numbers that had been in contact with known bad guy phones. American citizens were not the targets. Claiming so is an unrealistic leap.

The 2nd amendment has a purpose in that it prevents the government from disarming the population. It does this as a protective measure for the people. In keeping with this protective right, the government is prohibited from creating a database of who owns what firearms. But the government was allowed to create and run a national background check system. They do have a database of guns that are purchased, who the guns were sold by, who the FFL holder is, etc. But although they do check on who is buying the gun, the name of the buyer isn't stored and kept in the data-base. Now if the government got caught collecting the names, this would be found as Unconstitutional, but it doesn't prove that the government is taking away people's guns. Only that they are violating a protective measure that is considered too far along that slippery slope and could be abused in the future and make confiscation possible.

The same is true of the meta-data database. It's part of the slippery slope, and it was decided that the government couldn't show that it was really important enough, necessary enough, to be worth taking another step along that path, back up a step. But it isn't proof of spying on Americans.

Perhaps you have other proof. Or maybe you are talking about something else entirely and I misunderstood your unspecific claim.
 
lcpiper said:
They were collecting bulk telephone meta-data, and that was determined to be unconstitutional, but that was not in fact spying.
Click to expand...

Yes... as far as I'm concerned, it was and still is, spying. Why do you imply that it isn't? (I'm just curious).

edit: and word games aside, just because you're not the target doesn't mean your rights aren't being violated.
 
Last edited:
Master_shake_ said:
they gather intelligence in hopes they can stop something.

in reality they probably just go "we knew about that after the fact"
Click to expand...

More often than not, you will not find out about the successful endeavors, only the ones that slip through their fingers and happen anyways get news and public awareness. No safety is perfect, but only if it fails does one question it.

dr.stevil said:
Yes... as far as I'm concerned, it was and still is, spying. Why do you imply that it isn't? (I'm just curious).
Click to expand...

Here is phone meta data essentially

/Begin Data
XXX-XXX-XXXX > XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
XXX-XXX-XXXX < XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
XXX-XXX-XXXX > XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
/end Data

IMO isn't really a big deal, and if a known region causing problems is in regular contact with people here, they probably should know about it.
 
Darunion said:
Here is phone meta data essentially

/Begin Data
XXX-XXX-XXXX > XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
XXX-XXX-XXXX < XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
XXX-XXX-XXXX > XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
/end Data

IMO isn't really a big deal, and if a known region causing problems is in regular contact with people here, they probably should know about it.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I do think it's a big deal. I'm all for our intelligence agencies catching crooks & terrorists, but spying on everyone in hopes to catch a few bad apples isn't the way to do it. Luckily for us, the courts thought so too and ruled it unconstitutional.

edit: It wasn't just phone records they were collecting either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
 
Darunion said:
More often than not, you will not find out about the successful endeavors, only the ones that slip through their fingers and happen anyways get news and public awareness. No safety is perfect, but only if it fails does one question it.



Here is phone meta data essentially

/Begin Data
XXX-XXX-XXXX > XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
XXX-XXX-XXXX < XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
XXX-XXX-XXXX > XXX-XXX-XXXX (DATE) (DURATION)
/end Data

IMO isn't really a big deal, and if a known region causing problems is in regular contact with people here, they probably should know about it.
Click to expand...

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/fbi-admits-patriot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/

i guess it's a big secret if the FBI said it can't point to any.
 
Turning a Samsung TV and cell phones into a listening devices is not spying...

... ok.
 
dr.stevil said:
Yes... as far as I'm concerned, it was and still is, spying. Why do you imply that it isn't? (I'm just curious).

edit: and word games aside, just because you're not the target doesn't mean your rights aren't being violated.
Click to expand...

Why?

The number called, the number making the call, the time of the call and duration of the call. Stored in a database with no connection to any other databases, the only relational information you can extract from this is which numbers are calling which other numbers, and when and for how long. Just to find out who owned a number they had to go ask the provider, and when they did ask the provider and found that the owner was a US Person, they went back to a judge and got a warrant which was retroactive cause they didn't know who the numbers belonged too until they asked the provider.

The world makes a big deal about all the things you can figure out with meta-data but that's when you can correlate the meta-data with other data. If you can't link the two together, if the databases aren't connected, it's far less useful.

You guys say "spying" and I say "Doh !", they are supposed to be spying, it's their jobs, it's their mission, it's their purpose. The only question is , are they doing it illegally, or unconstitutionally which is a different thing.

You know, you don't go to jail for doing something that's unconstitutional, only for breaking the law. Sometimes they are the same thing cause there is a law in place to prevent what is unconstitutional, but sometimes the law isn't there yet so all you can do is make someone stop.

But I hate people using the word spying cause it's all negative and frankly it's use is inappropriate for a discussion like this. These Intelligence services do intelligence Collection. That collection can either be legal or it can be illegal. It can be authorized and empowered by the constitution or it can be unconstitutional.

There are people in the USA, who use US Service Provider business services, who are legal and constitutional targets for intelligence collection purposes. Collecting on these people is not wrong and doesn't deserve the negative usage of the word spying. Although the media continuously left it the details that the bulk meta-data program targeted overseas phone calls it remains true to the best of our knowledge. In the old land line telephone days all overseas phone calls were recorded, all of them. If anything, the bulk-meta data program was a less intrusive change to this older program as they were not recording content of calls any more.

I have been married to a girl from Korea since 1983. Before the bulk-meta data program they used to record all of my wife's calls home. With this program they recorded the meta-data instead. Frankly I am happy with the change.

So now you know where I am coming from. Now you know why I see it the way I do.

You know they listen to walkie-talkies too right? Radio communications. They listen and record and if while listening it becomes obvious that both parties are probably Americans, they just roll off to a different frequency and go looking for the next person using a radio. It's not illegal that they heard you talking, or that they were recording the call without a warrant. It's illegal if they keep listening and recording and start performing analysis to see who you are and find out who you were talking too and database the information etc. And this is because "it is reasonable" that someone would have to listen some, to know if you are a citizen or not.

The man said the other day, our privacy is not absolute, it's only reasonable.
 
jpm100 said:
Turning a Samsung TV and cell phones into a listening devices is not spying...

... ok.
Click to expand...
If the target is valid it's legal intelligence collection.

You guys never ever seem to ask yourself "who", instead you just assume it's against US Persons.
 
The loophole which the CIA and NSA use is "We can't tell which traffic is authentically from US citizens. So therefore we will track is all and throw it out later unless an alarm goes off which warrants further investigation"

You see back in the 80's/90's the CIA might have been able to tap a phone call to some middle east country or Russia because we knew the telephone existed in that country. (I have no knowledge if they did, but it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities)

But today with computers, you have people that can virtually meet anywhere with the server being anywhere, or the communication may make many hops, through many countries. There was a case where terrorist were using chat rooms because they were decentralized neutral areas from which they could hide and stage things. Mobile communication devices (ie: satellite communications) could also be anywhere. By this example, since traffic origin and destination are harder to determine, all traffic falls under the eyes on the spy agencies.

So the question becomes how good are they later about throwing out data that is truly outside their privy since it's hard to determine who's talking to who? The answer is...they can't. Hence they get to spy on ALL traffic. And this is what the report to congress pretty much said when they said they (NSA) can't accurately determine the source and destination of all communication.

There becomes a large potential of abuse for this power. I know LC Piper claims there are a ton of safegaurds in place and disciplinary actions. But as the Snowden files point out, and our good old Marine Core....sometimes personal and intimate details of our lives end up passed around both privately and on the net that shouldn't be. There's also no safe guards at the top to prevent hi-ranking officials from abusing the knowledge for potential gain. (ie: Blackmail)

Look what happened to the DNC and Hillary? And that's what was just publicly exposed. Imagine if a Supreme Court Justice decided to vote against your key piece of legislation that was a key platform of your election?

Doing anything on the net creates a digital fingerprint of you. Storing that data is what is dangerous, as it can be used against you later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lcpiper said:
Why?

The number called, the number making the call, the time of the call and duration of the call. Stored in a database with no connection to any other databases, the only relational information you can extract from this is which numbers are calling which other numbers, and when and for how long. Just to find out who owned a number they had to go ask the provider, and when they did ask the provider and found that the owner was a US Person, they went back to a judge and got a warrant which was retroactive cause they didn't know who the numbers belonged too until they asked the provider.

The world makes a big deal about all the things you can figure out with meta-data but that's when you can correlate the meta-data with other data. If you can't link the two together, if the databases aren't connected, it's far less useful.

You guys say "spying" and I say "Doh !", they are supposed to be spying, it's their jobs, it's their mission, it's their purpose. The only question is , are they doing it illegally, or unconstitutionally which is a different thing.

You know, you don't go to jail for doing something that's unconstitutional, only for breaking the law. Sometimes they are the same thing cause there is a law in place to prevent what is unconstitutional, but sometimes the law isn't there yet so all you can do is make someone stop.

But I hate people using the word spying cause it's all negative and frankly it's use is inappropriate for a discussion like this. These Intelligence services do intelligence Collection. That collection can either be legal or it can be illegal. It can be authorized and empowered by the constitution or it can be unconstitutional.

There are people in the USA, who use US Service Provider business services, who are legal and constitutional targets for intelligence collection purposes. Collecting on these people is not wrong and doesn't deserve the negative usage of the word spying. Although the media continuously left it the details that the bulk meta-data program targeted overseas phone calls it remains true to the best of our knowledge. In the old land line telephone days all overseas phone calls were recorded, all of them. If anything, the bulk-meta data program was a less intrusive change to this older program as they were not recording content of calls any more.

I have been married to a girl from Korea since 1983. Before the bulk-meta data program they used to record all of my wife's calls home. With this program they recorded the meta-data instead. Frankly I am happy with the change.

So now you know where I am coming from. Now you know why I see it the way I do.

You know they listen to walkie-talkies too right? Radio communications. They listen and record and if while listening it becomes obvious that both parties are probably Americans, they just roll off to a different frequency and go looking for the next person using a radio. It's not illegal that they heard you talking, or that they were recording the call without a warrant. It's illegal if they keep listening and recording and start performing analysis to see who you are and find out who you were talking too and database the information etc. And this is because "it is reasonable" that someone would have to listen some, to know if you are a citizen or not.

The man said the other day, our privacy is not absolute, it's only reasonable.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying... but as I mentioned to someone else. The courts (thankfully) agree with me in that it was over reaching and unconstitutional. As of the end of 2015, the NSA is no longer 'legally' allowed to do bulk meta-data collection (although I have trouble believing that). As I also mentioned, their data collection wasn't limited to just phone calls.

You have no problem with it, and thats fine... but I and many others do. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.
 
Master_shake_ said:
FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday.......................
.
Click to expand...

The way you did your post I can't tell who is quoting what, but I want to address this even if you didn't bring it up originally.

The Patriot Act was not only about Terrorism and was also very much about updating the laws for Law Enforcement. It is completely unfair to say that it's a bad law cause it isn't responsible for stopping terrorist acts. Where are the quotes about how it has been useless for convicting criminals? Where are those quotes?

The DoD is not Law Enforcement, Intelligence Services are not about "prevention", they are about winning conflicts. So when the NSA listens in on a terrorist, they don't act like cops and try to run and arrest him before he does something bad. They use that information to put more collection sources that are better for the job onto the target, they track the target, try to identify the source and backing, and depending on who the terrorists are thinking about attacking, we might even let them do it.

When you are discussing Intelligence work do not think domestic, think world wide. You must think of everything from that perspective or you will just never ever get it right.

They could be listening to a Chechen Rebel (terrorist) in Ukraine, planning to bomb a bus that transports Russian Embassy personnel to work.
They could be watching a FARC rebel group emplace an IED on a road that is used by a Cartel to transport cocaine by truck from "factory" to an airfield.
They could be recording a US Newswoman speaking to a Spanish Banker, who launders money for a Saudi Prince who also funds terror training camps in Iran.
They could be intercepting shipments of CISCO switches on their way to an IT company in Singapore, which is a front for a Chinese military hacking team, that has a contract to setup a server rooms for a business that has offices throughout Europe.

And, they could be listening in on phone calls from Isil recruiters who are trying to con American girls into joining the movement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-woman-who-tried-to-join-isis-sentenced-to-prison/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/denver-woman-who-tried-to-join-isis-sentenced-to-prison/
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...-with-aiding-terrorist-group-fbi-says07022014

The FBI really tried to get through to this girl and save her from herself. She simply couldn't be talked out of it so it cost her a 4 year sentence.

This girl is American. Her family is American. Not everyone in an FBI suite is just trying to hook whatever fish they can get with whatever excuse they think they can prove.
 
dr.stevil said:
I understand what you're saying... but as I mentioned to someone else. The courts (thankfully) agree with me in that it was over reaching and unconstitutional. As of the end of 2015, the NSA is no longer 'legally' allowed to do bulk meta-data collection (although I have trouble believing that). As I also mentioned, their data collection wasn't limited to just phone calls.

You have no problem with it, and thats fine... but I and many others do. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.
Click to expand...

You are right, instead they require the service providers to maintain and store the data for 5 years and bring their requests for the data to them. All they did was move the warehouse and give the keys to a business. Nothing is substantially different except now, the people holding the information have every monetary incentive to figure out how best to use it.

The NSA can still access the data, nothing changed really.
 
dr.stevil said:
I understand what you're saying... but as I mentioned to someone else. The courts (thankfully) agree with me in that it was over reaching and unconstitutional. As of the end of 2015, the NSA is no longer 'legally' allowed to do bulk meta-data collection (although I have trouble believing that). As I also mentioned, their data collection wasn't limited to just phone calls.

You have no problem with it, and thats fine... but I and many others do. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.
Click to expand...

We have the NSA for a reason as well.

But you should keep some details straight, although a court did rule it unconstitutional, it was ruled OK by another court, and this issue was not settled by a court or a court order. The Obama Administration ordered the change, not the courts. One President ordered the creation of this program and another President (publicly), ordered changes that moved where the data was stored and effectively changed how the NSA gains access to it. It hasn't really stopped the program from functioning.

Just so you keep that part straight.

As for what data collection the NSA does, Dude, if it makes an electronic fart it can be heard and collected.
Every imaginable type of electronic signal, if it travels through the electromagnetic spectrum, it's fair game as far as the "type" goes. The only questions that matter are "who does it belong to ?" and "do we give a damn ?".
 
The AP is suggesting that one big lesson the tech industry is drawing from the massive CIA leak on WikiLeaks is that their encryption efforts work. Going through the tools that the CIA use in their inventory, none of them broke the encryption used by such services as Apple's iMessage, WhatsApp or similar services. Rather than attacking the end-to-end encrypted messages these services use, CIA has had to compromise the devices they are running on, themselves.

This may seem like a moot point to some, since if CIA or someone using their techniques have compromised your phone, it doesn't matter if your transmissions are encrypted, as they can access all local content anyway. It does however mean that mass dragnets of these services are much less likely, and it forces prying agencies and identity thieves to individually target the people they are trying to get information from, sometimes physically grabbing their phone, installing malware and returning it without the targets knowledge.

When the Snowden NSA leak first became public, much of the pro-privacy narrative circled around how surveillance laws in the U.S. are outdated, as they were written for a time when surveillance was actually difficult and labor intensive, and not something you can do to everyone with the automated click of a button. It is becoming increasingly clear that the use of encryption can, for better or for worse, bring some of this surveillance difficulty back into play. Provided, that is, that the surveillance agencies are not successful in their ongoing attempts to get tech companies to build in intentional back doors.

"There are different levels where attacks take place, said Daniel Castro, vice president with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. "We may have secured one level (with encryption), but there are other weaknesses out there we should be focused on as well."

Cohn said people should still use encryption, even with these bypass techniques.

"It's better than nothing," she said. "The answer to the fact that your front door might be cracked open isn't to open all your windows and walk around naked, too."
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The AP is suggesting that one big lesson the tech industry is drawing from the massive CIA leak on WikiLeaks is that their encryption efforts work. Going through the tools that the CIA use in their inventory, none of them broke the encryption used by such services as Apple's iMessage, WhatsApp or similar services. Rather than attacking the end-to-end encrypted messages these services use, CIA has had to compromise the devices they are running on, themselves.

This may seem like a moot point to some, since if CIA or someone using their techniques have compromised your phone, it doesn't matter if your transmissions are encrypted, as they can access all local content anyway. It does however mean that mass dragnets of these services are much less likely, and it forces prying agencies and identity thieves to individually target the people they are trying to get information from, sometimes physically grabbing their phone, installing malware and returning it without the targets knowledge.

When the Snowden NSA leak first became public, much of the pro-privacy narrative circled around how surveillance laws in the U.S. are outdated, as they were written for a time when surveillance was actually difficult and labor intensive, and not something you can do to everyone with the automated click of a button. It is becoming increasingly clear that the use of encryption can, for better or for worse, bring some of this surveillance difficulty back into play. Provided, that is, that the surveillance agencies are not successful in their ongoing attempts to get tech companies to build in intentional back doors.

"There are different levels where attacks take place, said Daniel Castro, vice president with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. "We may have secured one level (with encryption), but there are other weaknesses out there we should be focused on as well."

Cohn said people should still use encryption, even with these bypass techniques.

"It's better than nothing," she said. "The answer to the fact that your front door might be cracked open isn't to open all your windows and walk around naked, too."
Click to expand...


Jesus, talk about trying to put lipstick on a pig (the AP, not you, Z).

How does anyone with an IQ over 80 not see this as the CIA using the AP as a proxy for damage control?

CIA can fuck off. As can their Operation Mockingbird fuckos in the media.
 
lcpiper said:
If the target is valid it's legal intelligence collection.

You guys never ever seem to ask yourself "who", instead you just assume it's against US Persons.
Click to expand...
FISA has like a 0.3% reject rate. CIA & NSA don't need FISA. So, there is no oversight. We know ex's and girlfriends are being checked. The media is mysteriously finding out details of the President & his staff's private conversations. Regardless the potential for abuse is too strong. The burden of proof is not on those claiming mass surveillance, it's on proving there isn't abuse at this point.
 
jpm100 said:
FISA has like a 0.3% reject rate.
Click to expand...


Why should FISA have a higher rejection rate? have you asked yourself this question?

Have you not considered that if the vast majority of targets are foreign nationals then the FISA court is a rubber stamp for them because they have no protections not being citizens, it's an automatic win.

Is it even remotely possible that the low rejection rate, instead of being a statistic that suggests they aren't checking anything, just maybe could be a statistic that shows that the NSA is doing it right, not not actually submitting many Americans for approval?

CIA & NSA don't need FISA.
Click to expand...
The NSA always does, the CIA may, it depends if it is FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE or Domestic Law Enforcement. Didn't the name "Foreign Intelligence" Surveillance Act (FISA) connect with you any at all?
"..............to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States"

We know ex's and girlfriends are being checked.
Click to expand...
Yes, there were like 10 in over 10 years, they were caught, and they ALL were foreign nationals and the person checking was in a foreign country except the one young man who checked his girlfriend out on his first day at work, was denied the information automatically, his activity identified immediately, where he was immediately terminated. Yes I looked into the LoveINT article pretty closely.

The media is mysteriously finding out details of the President & his staff's private conversations. Regardless the potential for abuse is too strong. The burden of proof is not on those claiming mass surveillance, it's on proving there isn't abuse at this point.
Click to expand...
The burden is convincing people who refuse to even listen at all, even a little, to simple explanations.
 
The CIA doesn't need special tools to spy on us. Most people are more than happy to build a dossier on themselves through years of social media use. Silobreaker makes information gathering easy....So does google...So does Maltego... People self-identify as threats or non-threats and release that info publicly. Snapchat makes facial recognition a breeze...what cute puppy ears you have.

The tools released in Vault 7 are nothing new. Some take a different approach, but the general exploits are largely the same bag. Nothing really groundbreaking at all. Of course your TV can spy on you... It has a camera and a mic.

FISA has a low rejection rate due to foreign entities not being US citizens, thus having zero protections.

Encryption makes data procurement a royal pain in the ass. When the elite talk about removing encryption, be afraid...very afraid.

SHA 1 collision attacks are a thing now....without quantum computing. Expect all current cryptography to be broken as quantum computing becomes a thing.

Artificial intelligence will kill us all anyway. Live a care-free life while you can.
 
Crixus said:
The CIA doesn't need special tools to spy on us. Most people are more than happy to build a dossier on themselves through years of social media use. Silobreaker makes information gathering easy....So does google...So does Maltego... People self-identify as threats or non-threats and release that info publicly. Snapchat makes facial recognition a breeze...what cute puppy ears you have.

The tools released in Vault 7 are nothing new. Some take a different approach, but the general exploits are largely the same bag. Nothing really groundbreaking at all. Of course your TV can spy on you... It has a camera and a mic.

FISA has a low rejection rate due to foreign entities not being US citizens, thus having zero protections.

Encryption makes data procurement a royal pain in the ass. When the elite talk about removing encryption, be afraid...very afraid.

SHA 1 collision attacks are a thing now....without quantum computing. Expect all current cryptography to be broken as quantum computing becomes a thing.

Artificial intelligence will kill us all anyway. Live a care-free life while you can.
Click to expand...

There are literally unmanned drones on the battlefield as we speak. You've all seen Terminator right? Whoever is developing advanced AI needs to stop before it becomes out of control. It only takes ONE PERSON to ruin everything if the technology falls into the wrong hands.

There is one great youtube video that analyzes the fall of the Roman Empire. There is a german word for the reasons behind the fall and there were hundreds of reasons all within this one word. It was made as a bit of a joke but all of the reasons are still true. One of them was particularly interesting to me, something like "Natural late stage lifeform decay." As if civilization as a whole acts as a lifeform and as it ages it goes through natural stages that are observable in smaller lifeforms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top