Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #60472 > unrolled thread

The Government's War on Encryption

Back to article view | Back to aus.computers

Contents

  The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-15 05:19 +0000
    The Government's War on Encryption jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 05:27 -0700
    Re: The Government's War on Encryption Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2017-07-16 08:49 +1000
    Re: The Government's War on Encryption SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> - 2017-07-16 10:46 +1000
      Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-16 01:49 +0000
        Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 01:33 +1000
    Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 20:29 +1000
      Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-16 23:17 +0000
        Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:23 +1000
          Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-19 23:13 +0000
            Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 20:39 +1000
              Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-20 23:04 +0000
                Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 02:31 +1000
                  Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-23 00:10 +0000
                    Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 11:14 +1000
                      Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-23 23:10 +0000
                        Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 11:13 +1000
                          Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-25 23:10 +0000
                            Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 15:23 +1000
                              Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-26 23:18 +0000
                                Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:05 +1000
                                  Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-27 23:01 +0000
                                    Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:24 +1000
                                      Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-28 22:40 +0000
                                        Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 10:54 +1000
                                          Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-30 01:46 +0000
                        Re: The Government's War on Encryption keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-07-24 19:08 +1000
                          Re: The Government's War on Encryption not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2017-07-25 23:12 +0000
      Re: The Government's War on Encryption Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-16 19:27 -0500
        Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:30 +1000
          Re: The Government's War on Encryption Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-20 06:33 -0500
            Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:49 +1000
            Re: The Government's War on Encryption keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-07-21 16:27 +1000
              Re: The Government's War on Encryption Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 08:28 +1000
              Re: The Government's War on Encryption Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-26 06:32 -0500
                Re: The Government's War on Encryption keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-07-26 21:58 +1000
                  Re: The Government's War on Encryption Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-07-30 02:53 -0500
      Re: The Government's War on Encryption Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:01 +1000
        Re: The Government's War on Encryption "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:31 +1000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#60538

"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:olb7vh$4um$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using encryption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>> century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order them to
>>>>>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular phone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>>>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>>>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>>>>
>>>>> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>>>>
>>>> I know they did fix that particular problem.
>>
>>> If they fixed one particular means of access used by the NSA,
>>> that doesn't fix the problem of the NSA using other means to
>>> access data.
>>
>> The NSA wouldn?t have any other means to access data

> Data outright, and the particular data
> that they want, may be different.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that’s saying something.

>> if they have to try monstering the manufacturers to have
>> backdoors that they can use and when the FBI has to try
>> to make apple provide access to that data thru the courts.

> The FBI and the NSA might not share the same access.

Very bloody unlikely that the FBI would choose to get egg all
over its stupid face admitting that it doesn’t by trying to get
the courts to force Apple to weaken the security of their devices.

>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>>>>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak,
>>>>
>>>> He leaked a hell of a lot  more than just that.
>>
>>> So why would he back the Guardian when
>>> they only publish things they've made up?
>>
>> Because he aint about to admit to having made it up, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> so why would he set himself up as the
>>>>> fall guy when the story is fake anyway?
>>>>
>>>> No one really knows why he did what he did.
>>>>
>>>>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple.
>>>>
>>>> But don?t say anything like what you claimed about Apple.
>>
>>> I claimed that they show the NSA had access to their customer data.
>>
>> It does nothing of the sort.
>
> Only to those with their heads in the sand.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Whether that was by accident or design on Apple's part is unknown.
>>
>> Like hell it is. We know that Apple refused to do what the FBI wanted.
>
> FBI, not NSA, and they may have just been trying
> to improve public perceptions after the NSA leak.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that’s saying something.

Public perceptions arent going to be improved by forcing
apple to allow snooping on the phone owner's data. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60540

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using encryption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order them to
>>>>>>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular phone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>>>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had happened.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>>>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>>>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>>>>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>>>>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know they did fix that particular problem.
>>>
>>>> If they fixed one particular means of access used by the NSA,
>>>> that doesn't fix the problem of the NSA using other means to
>>>> access data.
>>>
>>> The NSA wouldn?t have any other means to access data
> 
>> Data outright, and the particular data
>> that they want, may be different.
> 
> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.

That's saying something then is it? Well if you can just work
out what I'm saying we might get somewhere.

>>> if they have to try monstering the manufacturers to have
>>> backdoors that they can use and when the FBI has to try
>>> to make apple provide access to that data thru the courts.
> 
>> The FBI and the NSA might not share the same access.
> 
> Very bloody unlikely that the FBI would choose to get egg all
> over its stupid face admitting that it doesn?t by trying to get
> the courts to force Apple to weaken the security of their devices.

Why? It's not publicly known what the NSA can and can't do.

>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>>>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>>>>>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak,
>>>>>
>>>>> He leaked a hell of a lot  more than just that.
>>>
>>>> So why would he back the Guardian when
>>>> they only publish things they've made up?
>>>
>>> Because he aint about to admit to having made it up, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>>>> so why would he set himself up as the
>>>>>> fall guy when the story is fake anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> No one really knows why he did what he did.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple.
>>>>>
>>>>> But don?t say anything like what you claimed about Apple.
>>>
>>>> I claimed that they show the NSA had access to their customer data.
>>>
>>> It does nothing of the sort.
>>
>> Only to those with their heads in the sand.
> 
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
>>>> Whether that was by accident or design on Apple's part is unknown.
>>>
>>> Like hell it is. We know that Apple refused to do what the FBI wanted.
>>
>> FBI, not NSA, and they may have just been trying
>> to improve public perceptions after the NSA leak.
> 
> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
> 
> Public perceptions arent going to be improved by forcing
> apple to allow snooping on the phone owner's data. 

I'm saying that Apple may have been trying to improve their
damaged public perception by putting up a fight, not the FBI.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60542

"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:oldrc6$9g4$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order them 
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular 
>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>>>>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had happened.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>>>>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>>>>>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>>>>>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know they did fix that particular problem.
>>>>
>>>>> If they fixed one particular means of access used by the NSA,
>>>>> that doesn't fix the problem of the NSA using other means to
>>>>> access data.
>>>>
>>>> The NSA wouldn?t have any other means to access data
>>
>>> Data outright, and the particular data
>>> that they want, may be different.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.

> That's saying something then is it? Well if you can just
> work out what I'm saying we might get somewhere.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>> if they have to try monstering the manufacturers to have
>>>> backdoors that they can use and when the FBI has to try
>>>> to make apple provide access to that data thru the courts.
>>
>>> The FBI and the NSA might not share the same access.
>>
>> Very bloody unlikely that the FBI would choose to get egg all
>> over its stupid face admitting that it doesn?t by trying to get
>> the courts to force Apple to weaken the security of their devices.

> Why?

Even you can't actually be that fucking stupid.

> It's not publicly known what the NSA can and can't do.

Irrelevant to what the FBI would be stupid enough to get egg all over its 
face about.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>>>>>>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He leaked a hell of a lot  more than just that.
>>>>
>>>>> So why would he back the Guardian when
>>>>> they only publish things they've made up?
>>>>
>>>> Because he aint about to admit to having made it up, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>>>> so why would he set himself up as the
>>>>>>> fall guy when the story is fake anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one really knows why he did what he did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But don?t say anything like what you claimed about Apple.
>>>>
>>>>> I claimed that they show the NSA had access to their customer data.
>>>>
>>>> It does nothing of the sort.
>>>
>>> Only to those with their heads in the sand.
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>>>>> Whether that was by accident or design on Apple's part is unknown.
>>>>
>>>> Like hell it is. We know that Apple refused to do what the FBI wanted.
>>>
>>> FBI, not NSA, and they may have just been trying
>>> to improve public perceptions after the NSA leak.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
>>
>> Public perceptions arent going to be improved by forcing
>> apple to allow snooping on the phone owner's data.
>
> I'm saying that Apple may have been trying to improve their
> damaged public perception by putting up a fight, not the FBI.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

They have no damaged public perception.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60545

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order them 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>>>>>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>>>>>>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>>>>>>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know they did fix that particular problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If they fixed one particular means of access used by the NSA,
>>>>>> that doesn't fix the problem of the NSA using other means to
>>>>>> access data.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NSA wouldn?t have any other means to access data
>>>
>>>> Data outright, and the particular data
>>>> that they want, may be different.
>>>
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
> 
>> That's saying something then is it? Well if you can just
>> work out what I'm saying we might get somewhere.
> 
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
>>>>> if they have to try monstering the manufacturers to have
>>>>> backdoors that they can use and when the FBI has to try
>>>>> to make apple provide access to that data thru the courts.
>>>
>>>> The FBI and the NSA might not share the same access.
>>>
>>> Very bloody unlikely that the FBI would choose to get egg all
>>> over its stupid face admitting that it doesn?t by trying to get
>>> the courts to force Apple to weaken the security of their devices.
> 
>> Why?
> 
> Even you can't actually be that fucking stupid.
> 
>> It's not publicly known what the NSA can and can't do.
> 
> Irrelevant to what the FBI would be stupid enough to get egg all over its 
> face about.

You're still missing my point. The public don't know exactly what the
NSA can and can't access, so the FBI wouldn't look stupid if they
weren't allowed access certain data because the public wouldn't
know whether the NSA could access that data in the first place.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>>>>>>>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He leaked a hell of a lot  more than just that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So why would he back the Guardian when
>>>>>> they only publish things they've made up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because he aint about to admit to having made it up, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so why would he set himself up as the
>>>>>>>> fall guy when the story is fake anyway?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one really knows why he did what he did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But don?t say anything like what you claimed about Apple.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I claimed that they show the NSA had access to their customer data.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does nothing of the sort.
>>>>
>>>> Only to those with their heads in the sand.
>>>
>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>
>>>>>> Whether that was by accident or design on Apple's part is unknown.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like hell it is. We know that Apple refused to do what the FBI wanted.
>>>>
>>>> FBI, not NSA, and they may have just been trying
>>>> to improve public perceptions after the NSA leak.
>>>
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
>>>
>>> Public perceptions arent going to be improved by forcing
>>> apple to allow snooping on the phone owner's data.
>>
>> I'm saying that Apple may have been trying to improve their
>> damaged public perception by putting up a fight, not the FBI.
> 
> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.
> 
> They have no damaged public perception.

Yes they have, from the Prism leaks showing that either they had
cooperated with the NSA, or their security was weak enough to
allow the NSA to get in.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60547

"Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:olgeh7$hfk$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>>>>>>>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know they did fix that particular problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they fixed one particular means of access used by the NSA,
>>>>>>> that doesn't fix the problem of the NSA using other means to
>>>>>>> access data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NSA wouldn?t have any other means to access data
>>>>
>>>>> Data outright, and the particular data
>>>>> that they want, may be different.
>>>>
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
>>
>>> That's saying something then is it? Well if you can just
>>> work out what I'm saying we might get somewhere.
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>>>>>> if they have to try monstering the manufacturers to have
>>>>>> backdoors that they can use and when the FBI has to try
>>>>>> to make apple provide access to that data thru the courts.
>>>>
>>>>> The FBI and the NSA might not share the same access.
>>>>
>>>> Very bloody unlikely that the FBI would choose to get egg all
>>>> over its stupid face admitting that it doesn?t by trying to get
>>>> the courts to force Apple to weaken the security of their devices.
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Even you can't actually be that fucking stupid.
>>
>>> It's not publicly known what the NSA can and can't do.
>>
>> Irrelevant to what the FBI would be stupid enough to get egg all over its
>> face about.
>
> You're still missing my point.

You never had a point apart from the one on your pointy little head.

> The public don't know exactly what the NSA can and can't access,

But we do have the evidence that the FBI tried to use the courts
to force apple to help them do that and stopped trying to do
that when a 3rd party did that for them in a particular situation.

> so the FBI wouldn't look stupid if they weren't allowed
> access certain data because the public wouldn't know
> whether the NSA could access that data in the first place.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that’s saying something.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>>>>>>>>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He leaked a hell of a lot  more than just that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So why would he back the Guardian when
>>>>>>> they only publish things they've made up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because he aint about to admit to having made it up, fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> so why would he set himself up as the
>>>>>>>>> fall guy when the story is fake anyway?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one really knows why he did what he did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But don?t say anything like what you claimed about Apple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I claimed that they show the NSA had access to their customer data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does nothing of the sort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only to those with their heads in the sand.
>>>>
>>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether that was by accident or design on Apple's part is unknown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like hell it is. We know that Apple refused to do what the FBI 
>>>>>> wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>> FBI, not NSA, and they may have just been trying
>>>>> to improve public perceptions after the NSA leak.
>>>>
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
>>>>
>>>> Public perceptions arent going to be improved by forcing
>>>> apple to allow snooping on the phone owner's data.
>>>
>>> I'm saying that Apple may have been trying to improve their
>>> damaged public perception by putting up a fight, not the FBI.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.
>>
>> They have no damaged public perception.
>
> Yes they have, from the Prism leaks showing that either they had
> cooperated with the NSA, or their security was weak enough to
> allow the NSA to get in.

You don’t know that the NSA did get in. ALL you know is that some
purported slide had the word apple on it. You don’t even know if its
actually a real NSA slide, or even if it is, whether the NSA was lying
about what they could do to try to discourage fuckwits from using
any sort of electronic device to communicate with, to make it much
harder to do what they want to do. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60549

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message 
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21st
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> century?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know they did fix that particular problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If they fixed one particular means of access used by the NSA,
>>>>>>>> that doesn't fix the problem of the NSA using other means to
>>>>>>>> access data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NSA wouldn?t have any other means to access data
>>>>>
>>>>>> Data outright, and the particular data
>>>>>> that they want, may be different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
>>>
>>>> That's saying something then is it? Well if you can just
>>>> work out what I'm saying we might get somewhere.
>>>
>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>
>>>>>>> if they have to try monstering the manufacturers to have
>>>>>>> backdoors that they can use and when the FBI has to try
>>>>>>> to make apple provide access to that data thru the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The FBI and the NSA might not share the same access.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very bloody unlikely that the FBI would choose to get egg all
>>>>> over its stupid face admitting that it doesn?t by trying to get
>>>>> the courts to force Apple to weaken the security of their devices.
>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Even you can't actually be that fucking stupid.
>>>
>>>> It's not publicly known what the NSA can and can't do.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to what the FBI would be stupid enough to get egg all over its
>>> face about.
>>
>> You're still missing my point.
> 
> You never had a point apart from the one on your pointy little head.
> 
>> The public don't know exactly what the NSA can and can't access,
> 
> But we do have the evidence that the FBI tried to use the courts
> to force apple to help them do that and stopped trying to do
> that when a 3rd party did that for them in a particular situation.
> 
>> so the FBI wouldn't look stupid if they weren't allowed
>> access certain data because the public wouldn't know
>> whether the NSA could access that data in the first place.
> 
> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.

OK, if you insist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>>>>>>>>>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He leaked a hell of a lot  more than just that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why would he back the Guardian when
>>>>>>>> they only publish things they've made up?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because he aint about to admit to having made it up, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so why would he set himself up as the
>>>>>>>>>> fall guy when the story is fake anyway?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one really knows why he did what he did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But don?t say anything like what you claimed about Apple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I claimed that they show the NSA had access to their customer data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does nothing of the sort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only to those with their heads in the sand.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether that was by accident or design on Apple's part is unknown.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like hell it is. We know that Apple refused to do what the FBI 
>>>>>>> wanted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FBI, not NSA, and they may have just been trying
>>>>>> to improve public perceptions after the NSA leak.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that?s saying something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Public perceptions arent going to be improved by forcing
>>>>> apple to allow snooping on the phone owner's data.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying that Apple may have been trying to improve their
>>>> damaged public perception by putting up a fight, not the FBI.
>>>
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.
>>>
>>> They have no damaged public perception.
>>
>> Yes they have, from the Prism leaks showing that either they had
>> cooperated with the NSA, or their security was weak enough to
>> allow the NSA to get in.
> 
> You don?t know that the NSA did get in. ALL you know is that some
> purported slide had the word apple on it. You don?t even know if its
> actually a real NSA slide, or even if it is, whether the NSA was lying
> about what they could do to try to discourage fuckwits from using
> any sort of electronic device to communicate with, to make it much
> harder to do what they want to do. 

OK, if you insist. I wouldn't want to attempt untangling a conspiracy
theory as elaborate as that.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60524

On 7/24/2017 9:10 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Computer Nerd Kev" <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> A new law proposed by Turnbull appears to be aimed at undermining
>>>>>>>>>>> the security of all popular online services using encryption
>>>>>>>>>>> to secure user's data. Particularly those offering end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>> encryption which ensures that even the service operators have
>>>>>>>>>>> no way of accessing data stored and transferred through their
>>>>>>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st century,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 20th, actually.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh yes, never noticed. Funny that. Or perhaps I just meant that its
>>>>>>>>> been advanced and popularised significantly during the 21st century?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>>>>>>>>>> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>>>>>>>>> they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>>>>>>>>>> govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The internet isn't all run by Apple (thankfully),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, but that was just one example of an operation that
>>>>>>>> wouldn?t do that even if Turdbull did make that law here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I doubt Apple would do it even if it was law in the US either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rubbish,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll see...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple have been part of NSA's Prism program since
>>>>>>> 2012, along with Google, Facebook, and more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How odd that the FBI had to try to get the court to order them to
>>>>>> assist with getting the data they wanted from a particular phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> While Apple were looking to clear their name.
>>>>
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>
>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>
>>>>> The NSA and the FBI doubless don't share the
>>>>> same relationships with companies anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage.
>>>
>>> OK, if you insist.
>>>
>>>>>>> True they might not have known if they were hacked, but
>>>>>>> they didn't go into panic mode when they found out either.
>>>>
>>>>>> They fixed the problem when it became clear what had happened.
>>>>
>>>>> The NSA documents released didn't describe the
>>>>> actual exploits or backdoors used, so how would
>>>>> we know whether everything was fixed or not?
>>>>
>>>> Because we know that the exploit that was used to get the
>>>> info the FBI wanted by the 3rd party is not there any longer,
>>>> so that technique can't be used with updated phones now.
>>>
>>> One backdoor being fixed doesn't mean that every backdoor was
>>> fixed.
>>
>> Yet another straw man being thrashed.
>
> So you don't care whether they "fixed the problem" or not?
>
>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
>>>>
>>>>>> Just because some fool journo claims something...
>>>>
>>>>> But when they claim something while showing the
>>>>> actual slides from the NSA describing the system...
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea where those slides came from.
>>>>
>>>> The NSA certainly doesn't admit that they are theirs.
>>>
>>> Then Snowden and the Guardian went to
>>> quite a lot of trouble just to make up a story.
>>
>> But you don?t know where he got those slides from.
>
> But the yanks want to arrest him for the leak, so why would
> he set himself up as the fall guy when the story is fake
> anyway?
>
>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>
> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple. We don't know whether
> they deliberately allowed the NSA access or not.
>
Don't dis Apple in front of Speed, he's a fanboi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60527

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote:
> On 7/24/2017 9:10 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And it isnt relevant to your stupid claim about Apple anyway.
>>
>> Of course it is, the slides mention Apple. We don't know whether
>> they deliberately allowed the NSA access or not.
>>
> Don't dis Apple in front of Speed, he's a fanboi.

What fine supporters they have.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60485

The Wod Walloper, wote:

----snip----

> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>
> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
> allows govt to snoop on what you are doing

You're up yourself, Woddy. Their "aitomatic update system" is
a company Trojan. They themselves can snoop on you, or alter
any of your data, any time you connevct your Apple device to
the internet.

And if they see it as in their interest, they can hand you over
to any gummint agency at any time.

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60490

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.

>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
>> that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing

> You're up yourself, Woddy.

We'll see...

> Their "aitomatic update system"

Which you are free to disable if you want to.

> is a company Trojan.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that’s saying something.

> They themselves can snoop on you, or alter any of your data,
> any time you connevct your Apple device to the internet.

But they choose not to and even encrypt the stuff like nav
details so no one else can snoop on your movements either.

> And if they see it as in their interest, they can
> hand you over to any gummint agency at any time.

And they choose  not to do that, fuckwit. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60497

Wod Walloper wote:
> Ned Latham wrote
> > Wod Walloper wote:
> > >
> > > And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
> > >
> > > There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
> > > that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing
> >
> > You're up yourself, Woddy.
>
> We'll see...
>
> > Their "automatic update system"
>
> Which you are free to disable if you want to.

Larf. Do you actually believe that what a corporation says is disabled
is really disabled?

And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: Apple has a history of
shonky business practise.

> > is a company Trojan.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage,

Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
that made the connection.

> > They themselves can snoop on you, or alter any of your data,
> > any time you connevct your Apple device to the internet.
>
> But they choose not to

Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. The system is therefore a company
Trojan. By definition.

Same goes for for all that Microsloth shit.

> > And if they see it as in their interest, they can
> > hand you over to any gummint agency at any time.
>
> And they choose not to do that,

Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. You wanna trust a corporation that
is a known intellectual property thief and is known to cooperate with
third parties to the detriment of their own customers' best interests?

Feel free. It's you and your assets that are at risk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60498

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> brayed
> Rod Speed wote:
>> Ned Latham wrote
>>> Rod Speed wote:
>> > >
>> > > And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>> > >
>> > > There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
>> > > that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing
>> >
>> > You're up yourself, Woddy.
>>
>> We'll see...
>>
>> > Their "automatic update system"
>>
>> Which you are free to disable if you want to.
 
> Larf. 

Donkeys cant laugh, donkeyboy. 

> Do you actually believe that what a corporation 
> says is disabled is really disabled?

I do when even the FBI has to try to get a court order to 
be able to see what they want to see in a particular phone. 
 
> And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: 
> Apple has a history of shonky business practise.

Apple has a history of telling the likes of the FBI 
to go and fuck themselves when they demand 
that a back door is provided in their systems. 
 
>> > is a company Trojan.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage,
> 
> Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
> machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
> fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
> is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
> that made the connection.

Irrelevant to whether its ever used like that donkeychild. 
 
>> > They themselves can snoop on you, or alter any of your data,
>> > any time you connevct your Apple device to the internet.
>>
>> But they choose not to
> 
> Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. The system 
> is therefore a company Trojan. By definition.

Even sillier than you usually manage, donkeychild. 
 
> Same goes for for all that Microsloth shit.

Same goes for any computer that can be updated, donkeychild. 

And for any that is ever supplied by anyone 
even if it cant be updated, donkeychild. 
 
>> > And if they see it as in their interest, they can
>> > hand you over to any gummint agency at any time.
>>
>> And they choose not to do that,
> 
> Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. You wanna trust a corporation that
> is a known intellectual property thief and is known to cooperate with
> third parties to the detriment of their own customers' best interests?

Yep, when clearly even the fucking FBI has to try to get a 
court to force Apple to allow access to one of their phones 
and gets told to go and fuck itself by the corporation. 
 
> Feel free. It's you and your assets that are at risk.

Nope, at no risk what so ever.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60501

On 7/20/2017 9:33 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Wod Walloper wote:
>> Ned Latham wrote
>>> Wod Walloper wote:
>>>>
>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>>>>
>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
>>>> that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing
>>>
>>> You're up yourself, Woddy.
>>
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> Their "automatic update system"
>>
>> Which you are free to disable if you want to.
>
> Larf. Do you actually believe that what a corporation says is disabled
> is really disabled?
>
> And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: Apple has a history of
> shonky business practise.
>
>>> is a company Trojan.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage,
>
> Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
> machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
> fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
> is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
> that made the connection.

Come on, you're supposed to be an expert aren't you? Of course you can 
stop it, you just don't use a firewall to do it.

>>> They themselves can snoop on you, or alter any of your data,
>>> any time you connevct your Apple device to the internet.
>>
>> But they choose not to
>
> Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. The system is therefore a company
> Trojan. By definition.
>
> Same goes for for all that Microsloth shit.
>
>>> And if they see it as in their interest, they can
>>> hand you over to any gummint agency at any time.
>>
>> And they choose not to do that,
>
> Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. You wanna trust a corporation that
> is a known intellectual property thief and is known to cooperate with
> third parties to the detriment of their own customers' best interests?
>
> Feel free. It's you and your assets that are at risk.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60502

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:27:14 +1000, keithr0 <user@account.invalid>
wrote:

>>>> Their "automatic update system"
>>>
>>> Which you are free to disable if you want to.
>>
>> Larf. Do you actually believe that what a corporation says is disabled
>> is really disabled?
>>
>> And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: Apple has a history of
>> shonky business practise.
>>
>>>> is a company Trojan.
>>>
>>> Even sillier than you usually manage,
>>
>> Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
>> machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
>> fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
>> is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
>> that made the connection.
>
>Come on, you're supposed to be an expert aren't you? Of course you can 
>stop it, you just don't use a firewall to do it.
>
>>>> They themselves can snoop on you, or alter any of your data,
>>>> any time you connevct your Apple device to the internet.
>>>
>>> But they choose not to
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. The system is therefore a company
>> Trojan. By definition.
>>
>> Same goes for for all that Microsloth shit.
>>
>>>> And if they see it as in their interest, they can
>>>> hand you over to any gummint agency at any time.
>>>
>>> And they choose not to do that,
>>
>> Irrelevant. The point is, they CAN. You wanna trust a corporation that
>> is a known intellectual property thief and is known to cooperate with
>> third parties to the detriment of their own customers' best interests?
>>
>> Feel free. It's you and your assets that are at risk.
>>
I see another Apple/Iphone backdoor discovered.
https://www.cso.com.au/article/625140/update-ios-10-3-3-now-apple-patches-serious-wi-fi-exploit/
https://is.gd/9aFw5U  
Update to iOS 10.3.3 now: Apple patches serious Wi-Fi exploit
Apple’s iOS 10.3.3 patch fixes Broadpwn, a vulnerability that can be
exploited over Wi-Fi.
-- 
Petzl
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement.
In the end, you ignore everthing and click "I agree"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60534

keithr0 wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Wod Walloper wote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote
> > > > Wod Walloper wote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
> > > > > that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing
> > > >
> > > > You're up yourself, Woddy.
> > >
> > > We'll see...
> > >
> > > > Their "automatic update system"
> > >
> > > Which you are free to disable if you want to.
> >
> > Larf. Do you actually believe that what a corporation says is disabled
> > is really disabled?
> >
> > And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: Apple has a history of
> > shonky business practise.
> >
> > > > is a company Trojan.
> > >
> > > Even sillier than you usually manage,
> >
> > Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
> > machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
> > fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
> > is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
> > that made the connection.
>
> Come on, you're supposed to be an expert aren't you?

Who told you that?

> Of course you can stop it, you just don't use a firewall to do it.

Of course, My 'doze machines never see the internet. What they need
from that source they get from my linux fileserver.

I don't have any Apple devices, but if I had they'd get the same
treatment.

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60535

On 7/26/2017 9:32 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> keithr0 wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Wod Walloper wote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote
>>>>> Wod Walloper wote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
>>>>>> that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing
>>>>>
>>>>> You're up yourself, Woddy.
>>>>
>>>> We'll see...
>>>>
>>>>> Their "automatic update system"
>>>>
>>>> Which you are free to disable if you want to.
>>>
>>> Larf. Do you actually believe that what a corporation says is disabled
>>> is really disabled?
>>>
>>> And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: Apple has a history of
>>> shonky business practise.
>>>
>>>>> is a company Trojan.
>>>>
>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage,
>>>
>>> Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
>>> machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
>>> fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
>>> is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
>>> that made the connection.
>>
>> Come on, you're supposed to be an expert aren't you?
>
> Who told you that?

You implied that you are a software developer.

>> Of course you can stop it, you just don't use a firewall to do it.
>
> Of course, My 'doze machines never see the internet. What they need
> from that source they get from my linux fileserver.

There is absolutely no need to go to that extent and even Linux machines 
should be protected.

> I don't have any Apple devices, but if I had they'd get the same
> treatment.

I've got an iPod and an old iPad, they don't need much looking after

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60551

keithr0 wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > keithr0 wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Wod Walloper wote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote
> > > > > > Wod Walloper wote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no way that Apple will be providing anything
> > > > > > > that allows govt to snoop on what you are doing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're up yourself, Woddy.
> > > > >
> > > > > We'll see...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Their "automatic update system"
> > > > >
> > > > > Which you are free to disable if you want to.
> > > >
> > > > Larf. Do you actually believe that what a corporation says is disabled
> > > > is really disabled?
> > > >
> > > > And Apple's not just any corporation, Woddy: Apple has a history of
> > > > shonky business practise.
> > > >
> > > > > > is a company Trojan.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even sillier than you usually manage,
> > > >
> > > > Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain, moron. Your Apple
> > > > machine connects to a company website. That site replies. With any
> > > > fucking thing they feel like installing on your machine, and there
> > > > is NO firewall that can prevent it, because it is *your* machine
> > > > that made the connection.
> > >
> > > Come on, you're supposed to be an expert aren't you?
> >
> > Who told you that?
>
> You implied that you are a software developer.

I am. But I don't see a connection between that and expertise in
networking and/or security.

> > > Of course you can stop it, you just don't use a firewall to do it.
> >
> > Of course, My 'doze machines never see the internet. What they need
> > from that source they get from my linux fileserver.
>
> There is absolutely no need to go to that extent

That is quite wrong. As evidence of that I ask you to carefully
consider the "ransom" attacks that were in the news a few weeks
ago.

> and even Linux machines should be protected.

Of course. But it can be done sensibly with the *n*x family.

> > I don't have any Apple devices, but if I had they'd get the same
> > treatment.
>
> I've got an iPod and an old iPad, they don't need much looking after

If no-one attacks, even a baby with candy is safe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60486

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:29:46 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> While I personally don't feel under threat of being identified
>> as a terrorist, paedophile, drug smuggler etc., I do expect to
>> be able to use the most secure encryption methods publicly
>> available in order to share information online that I don't want
>> accessed by other members of the public. Unlike telephone and mail
>> systems, the internet is an open network - users are only
>> authenticated by the information they provide on every use. For
>> this reason the system of data encryption, which is a reliable
>> method of authenticating users, must be retained in its most
>> secure form in order to ensure that the internet remains an
>> appropriate system for all of the innumerable uses that have been
>> found for it.
>>
>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>
>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>
>Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>
>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st century,
>
>20th, actually.
>
>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>
>Nope.
>
>And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>
>There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>
>Its all just more mindless piss and wind from pollys. 

Encryption decoder for Apple was outsourced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute#FBI_withdrawal_of_request
  https://is.gd/7tTfha 
-- 
Petzl 
Don't be "sheep to the slaughter"
ALWAYS Vote oligarchies Coalition, Labor, "Greens", Derryn Hinch
*LAST*, Federal State and Council!
Or you are voting for Islam and Sharia.


For Turnbull, ‘multi-faith’ only means Islam
https://is.gd/bunwYB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60491

"Petzl" <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:9r2omctbngrtjij4m2bmui3s8k87g4ei5v@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:29:46 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> While I personally don't feel under threat of being identified
>>> as a terrorist, paedophile, drug smuggler etc., I do expect to
>>> be able to use the most secure encryption methods publicly
>>> available in order to share information online that I don't want
>>> accessed by other members of the public. Unlike telephone and mail
>>> systems, the internet is an open network - users are only
>>> authenticated by the information they provide on every use. For
>>> this reason the system of data encryption, which is a reliable
>>> method of authenticating users, must be retained in its most
>>> secure form in order to ensure that the internet remains an
>>> appropriate system for all of the innumerable uses that have been
>>> found for it.
>>>
>>> With this in mind, I feel it should be asked:
>>
>>> If terrorism enables the erosion of the
>>> capabilities offered by the internet,
>>
>>Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>
>>> one of the key projects of the Western world in the 21st century,
>>
>>20th, actually.
>>
>>> has it not, to some extent, begun to win?
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>And whatever that fool Turdbull wants, isnt going to happen.
>>
>>There is no way that Apple will be providing anything that
>>allows govt to snoop on what you are doing and even if
>>they were that stupid, it completely trivial to ensure that
>>govt can't do that, whatever legislation govt produces.
>>
>>Its all just more mindless piss and wind from pollys.
>
> Encryption decoder for Apple was outsourced.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI-Apple_encryption_dispute#FBI_withdrawal_of_request
>  https://is.gd/7tTfha

That only worked due to a fault in the code which has been fixed. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | aus.computers

csiph-web