Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I am thinking of not just embarassing data, but being able to target specific people, or specific beliefs systems with misinformation, or other weaponized data.
Usa
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #262
If you were an INT shop you would grab it with open arms - the data-mining and pattern matching opportunity would be of enormous benefit
always cracks me up when people get excited about INT shops seeing their data, the same people invariably give away more information online and with no awareness of whats been gifted
Sad but true, and nothing new really. Your rights are only protected from the government, private entities are a different matter entirely. From selling your information to engaging in rather restrictive censorship, private business has been a problem for quite some time. Unfortunately there's not currently a framework for dealing with this system-wide, and additionally it's only going to get worse. Companies like Google and Facebook have gone from private businesses providing a given service to the equivalent of a public utility, in terms of their prevalence and impact. But they're under very little external scrutiny and certainly aren't held to a standard anywhere near the Bill of Rights. It's not just privacy that's in question. It's control over the flow of information.
Most of the time people are bashing down to sign up to schemes that exist purely to sell data. Schemes that have very little interest on who they sell your data too. You don't even have to do it online.
Think airports and shopping centres that match metadata wifi/BT to your flyby or loyalty card details.They know who you are, exactly where you have been in their premises, everything you purchased, and where your going. You combine that with security footage from fixed cameras. Then you automate that linking. Then you make a market for that data.
Browsing data would be like fish in a barrel.
These type of laws will encourage people to use VPNs.
As an aside, I see no real issue here. Data is neutral, it is all about how it is used. My shopping patterns can be used by retailers to recommend me products that I will truly appreciate; it can also be used by malicious entities to tailor their attempts to phish data out of me.
Anyway if I have nothing to hide from my own nation's intelligence agencies, the very agencies meant to keep me safe, then why should I be too concerned?
Because one might not trust one's own nation's intelligence agencies. And because surveillance capabilities over the general population at large have grown by leaps and bounds over the last three decades. What would have been compared to the Stasi 20 years ago, is routine today. And often once the genie is out of the box, you're left with a new reality that includes massive, accepted, and widely practiced, surveillance of everyone. Throw in countries like Russia where freedom is often a function of how little the government can or chooses to control you, and we have an ugly picture.
2007yellow430
Active Member
When the penal code compromises several books, if the governing authorities had access to your data, it is highly probably the could find something.That is the problem. It leads to a police state. That's why the USA's founders put the 4th and 5th amendments, along with he provision of only one trial.
Art
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #269
CREF what Feanor said
the issue of "nothing to hide" has to also include the new reality that the people who want that information now aren't necessarily benign players, and not all are well intentioned.
the money generated from scams alone is eye watering - and that data basically has been harvested from metadata scraped from places like click bait sites, bought commercially and bought from hacker teams who also make a roaring trade from it
a significant majority I would argue are completely oblivious to how much idle information that they give can then be pattern matched
a lot of the core products used by INT shops nowadays are modified data mining packages that came from the retail world and were tweaked to look at different vectors
A few years back I was on a project to look at how extra information could be gathered to enhance exiting datasets. Of the 4 x INT packages submitted by industry, 3 of them were legacy retail packages that had been tweaked.
I once attended a seminar run by an FBI cyber geek. The place was full of people who quietly felt that they had bullet proof systems and knew how the cyber landscape was setup re malicious intent behaviour etc...
that FBI agent remotely cracked open what was considered a robustly protected laptop in under a minute. 5 minutes later he had basically formed a web biography of the laptops owner.
it's why any entity seriously involved with hi-level systems has a white room
Thank you Feanor, Art and GF for your responses.
Also, you are right to say that online scam trade is a roaring business. I've never been a fan of browsing sites that promise free content i.e. shows, movies, let alone clickbait sites. I accept that if I must access those sites, then I must similarly be aware of the risks involved. I've seen how phishing attempts on me have changed over time to match my corporate and personal browsing behaviour.
Then we talk about the retail side of things. Just seeing how Google Adsense has changed the ad content directed at me over the years is just further reinforcement of the fact that industry is already deeply engaged in the business of data collection and pattern matching. It really comes as no surprise to me that nothing major needs to be done in order to tailor such software for governmental use.
I apologise if this sounds dismissive but I am not surprised at the FBI's cyber capabilities, especially since America is a nation that is in the crosshairs of many unfriendly entities (hence the white room). Thus my surprise whenever Americans express concern about the FBI being an organisation set up just to spy on them. I think it quite unlikely that your average law-abiding citizen will be target of a surveillance op...unless they are neither average nor law-abiding heh
Generally speaking, whether the citizens are actually buying into the need to collect data at the expense of personal privacy for their own benefit or are simply too caught up in daily minutiae to voice concerns, I think big data of this sort is the way forward. I guess I can say this because I am confident of the checks and balances I have in my nation.
Perhaps, if I may just comment generally - Feanor, if I were in your shoes I think I'll be rather wary too. Art...personally I think Americans fear the government more than they should, especially given the current geopolitical climate.
The thing about "finding something" is that everyone will have things that they wish kept private from others, but what exactly are the things that must be kept private? And I think the bigger issue here is that, even if these things we feel must be kept secret from others are discovered by our national intelligence agencies yet are not actioned upon because they are deemed not to be a threat to national security, then should we as individual citizens still be too concerned? If nothing happens to the innocent person despite their private information being made available to the government...is the state still a police state? Or is the state simply doing its duty to keep you as safe as possible? If there are legal safeguards in place, how concerned should we really be?
I think it very apt to describe it as a new reality - I've come to accept that just as nearly nothing you do in your neighbourhood goes unnoticed, nearly nothing you do online goes unobserved. If only the average person truly knows what metadata is...
Also, you are right to say that online scam trade is a roaring business. I've never been a fan of browsing sites that promise free content i.e. shows, movies, let alone clickbait sites. I accept that if I must access those sites, then I must similarly be aware of the risks involved. I've seen how phishing attempts on me have changed over time to match my corporate and personal browsing behaviour.
Then we talk about the retail side of things. Just seeing how Google Adsense has changed the ad content directed at me over the years is just further reinforcement of the fact that industry is already deeply engaged in the business of data collection and pattern matching. It really comes as no surprise to me that nothing major needs to be done in order to tailor such software for governmental use.
I apologise if this sounds dismissive but I am not surprised at the FBI's cyber capabilities, especially since America is a nation that is in the crosshairs of many unfriendly entities (hence the white room). Thus my surprise whenever Americans express concern about the FBI being an organisation set up just to spy on them. I think it quite unlikely that your average law-abiding citizen will be target of a surveillance op...unless they are neither average nor law-abiding heh
Feanor, thanks for sharing. I'm glad to be here because these are perspectives that I would not have gained due to my own personal circumstances. I guess the political environment really makes a difference. To give an example of the levels of tolerance Singaporeans have towards inward national surveillance, last year the government announced increasing the number of public security cameras being installed but there was barely a public outcry. If anything, the Singapore government is trying to embrace big data in sectors like the social services i.e. SSNet while building assurance that confidentiality is strictly upheld. (Had cases of warnings issued to staff who unintentionally attempted to access restricted parts SSNet.) While there is a lot of sensitive information being collected, there too are safeguards.
Generally speaking, whether the citizens are actually buying into the need to collect data at the expense of personal privacy for their own benefit or are simply too caught up in daily minutiae to voice concerns, I think big data of this sort is the way forward. I guess I can say this because I am confident of the checks and balances I have in my nation.
Perhaps, if I may just comment generally - Feanor, if I were in your shoes I think I'll be rather wary too. Art...personally I think Americans fear the government more than they should, especially given the current geopolitical climate.
2007yellow430
Active Member
I am a civil rights lawyer. I see these things occurring on a regular basis. Start out with a great idea, makes sense, then they start gaming it. An example: federal forfeiture laws. Mostly ok, but you see individual jurisdictions expanding their take. Your position seems to be that our government is good. Most of the time, you're right, but there are times when it isn't. That's why the protections are there. Just my .02, but after 45 years of this, I think I have some insight.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.
Art
There are two kinds of freedom. The kind positively affirmed and legally safeguarded, and the kind that exists simply because nobody has bothered to regulate or because it's simply impossible/impractical to control. The second kind of freedom has traditionally been very significant. However over the past 3 decades that kind of freedom has been on a drastic decrease even in the US. And increases in the ability to monitor and control lead to increases in the ability to regulate and legislate. Consequently, regardless of whether we're talking about democrats or republicans, the power of government over its own citizens grows, and the power of private entities in many areas begins to be as significant if not more significant then government, without the associated safeguards.
Prime example, the government has only limited ability to censor public TV or radio broadcasts in the US, but YouTube can censor anything they want. They can even blatantly lie about why a video was deleted (claim copyright violation for example). The government might have safeguards for what they do with sensitive information collected but private companies are different. And even in the US questionable legislation like the Patriot Act is still on the books. Nobody repealed it.
On the subject of big data being the way "forward". Big data is inevitable. It's more or less inevitable, but I strongly suspect that it will come with major downsides, and a destruction of the kind of privacy that we are used to expecting, as well as Orwellian levels of surveillance capability, even if they are not united in the hands of a single agency.
Trump in tough-guy mode, telling China to fix the North Korea problem or he will and succeed 'totally'. Does he really think public posturing will pressure the Chinese into action and lose face by appearing to bend to US pressure? His grand gesture has effectively painted him into a corner if the Chinese call his bluff. So what to expect from a cornered animal?
Well the LA Times have gone on the offensive with regard to President Trump.
Our Dishonest President. It's part 1 of a four part editorial over the next four days.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #275
this is when you know that he's not listening to advice from DoD or State
I think I know what the chinese would be tempted to say.....
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #276
DASD nomination for Sth Asia - another general with some strong connections into Australia.
SecDef Mattis To Tap Former Army FAO For DASD South Asia « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
SecDef Mattis To Tap Former Army FAO For DASD South Asia « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Does it involve pissing in the corner while confined to a round room?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #278
yep
a room and task designed for winning winning winning.... I think the chinese expression translates to "really? knock yourself out"
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #279
interesting op-ed on Comey.
Comey on the Political Firestorms His Decisions Stoke: ‘Honestly, I Don’t Care’ - Defense One
Comey on the Political Firestorms His Decisions Stoke: ‘Honestly, I Don’t Care’ - Defense One
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Finally, a decision that makes sense. Bannon should never have been at the NSC table.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...rom-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...rom-national-security-council-role-in-shakeup
- Status