Tracking his location, though it. They have his face pic, yeah, but what country do they even start looking? And then there's verification that they have the right person. He's just not going to admit to being a pedo when asked.
Tracking his location, though it. They have his face pic, yeah, but what country do they even start looking? And then there's verification that they have the right person. He's just not going to admit to being a pedo when asked.
Yes agencies generally go out of their way to advertise the ways they catch pedophiles, to make it easier for other pedophiles to avoid doing such things
Yes agencies generally go out of their way to advertise the ways they catch pedophiles, to make it easier for other pedophiles to avoid doing such things
I use grapheneOS on a refurbished pixel 3xl I paid $300 for and highly recommend. How am I supporting google again? Both pinephone and libre phone don't play nicely enough to make me want it as a daily carry.
Interpol identified him because he swirled his face in a manner that was able to be de-anonymized. This doesn't prove your "case in point" except that maybe pedophiles are stupid and that you didn't read the article. They wouldn't have had shit to go on if he hadn't been stupid enough to taunt them. You don't seem to understand what AI facial recognition is either. He's clearly traveled abroad, and I'm gonna guess there's probably a shady program that catalogs photos of everyone as they travel.
You cherry pick article headlines that you construe as supporting your retarded viewpoint. Had you done a little research, or were even familiar with the actual subject in this thread you'd have chosen this link: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7gd9b/facebook-helped-fbi-hack-child-predator-buster-hernandez where Facebook spent serious cash to develop an 0-day exploit for Tails. Does it sit well with you the precedent set for corporations spending money to attack its users regardless of the intended purpose?
Again, had you actually read the article, you'd have read this: "The FBI was able to eventually access Alshamrani's phone not by an unprecedented technical feat, but rather by "an automated passcode guesser," according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "
Most good encryption isn't broken by brute force, but by flaws in the implementation anyway. What Apple promises its users in the way of "security" is them trying to ensure that all your data belongs to them to be bought and sold as they please.
Emphasis on privacy and good opsec doesn't equal impervious to government surveillance. It just means giving a fuck about potentially who and how your data is used.
All internet traffic entering and leaving the US (and probably within) is tapped at the fiber optic level (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) and stored indefinitely (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center) anyway. So one could theorize that even encrypted traffic will eventually be decrypted as processing power increases.
I would think someone who uses the handle "GroyperSupreme" would value something like free speech, instead you're actually against free speech. It's gonna be amusing to see you flip-flop when the freedom you enjoy right now to say nigger on the internet is eroded by the social justice agenda and the things you've already said might come with jail time (see UK hate speech laws).
Actually you should just change your name to GlowinthedarkCIAnigger because your current attitude and failure to grasp the subject matter discussed in this thread can only mean one of two things: you're a technologically out-of-touch boomer, or you're a fucking fed.
Taking anything which Motherboard or Vice publishes without an enormous grain a salt is foolish.
Your case 2020; my case 2016. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, that fB didn't help or wouldn't help, because it doesn't prove that government agencies can't do what I said on their own, which they have and done repeatedly.
What's the difference if they gracefully break the password or do it with random brute force? That's like saying your house is secure if robbers didn't lock pick the front door but drove a truck though it.
It just means giving a fuck about potentially who and how your data is used.
You literally sign away your rights to this data when you click, "I agree to the terms." Having a VPN or whatever doesn't stop them. I suspect like most things
computer-y, the VPN's are or will be working jointly with the popular applications to get around that. It was sort of like when the anti-virus companies seemed to be working in concert with the virus makers. To say fB or any other app isn't actively working on a solution for that very situation is foolish, becauseMONEY.
So one could theorize that even encrypted traffic will eventually be decrypted as processing power increases.
Did you inadvertently agree with me? Oh Heavens. It appears you did. Exactly how does it help your argument? Oh it doesn't. LOL.
You are literally an end user gobbling up the presented "solutions" (much like your penchant for diseased cocks) which are laid out for autistic retards to grab up. The joke is by the time even cutting edge users like you employ these "safe guards," people already have hacked or are in the process of working around them. You're not even close to the leading edge of the curve. Which should be no surprise.
I have helped to put several people in federal prison. I am not ashamed of this. Case details will not be discussed, because retaliation.
I would think someone who uses the handle "GroyperSupreme" would value something like free speech, instead you're actually against free speech. It's gonna be amusing to see you flip-flop when the freedom you enjoy right now to say nigger on the internet is eroded by the social justice agenda and the things you've already said might come with jail time (see UK hate speech laws).
Taking anything which Motherboard or Vice publishes without an enormous grain a salt is foolish.
Your case 2020; my case 2016. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, that fB didn't help or wouldn't help, because it doesn't prove that government agencies can't do what I said on their own, which they have and done repeatedly.
What's the difference if they gracefully break the password or do it with random brute force? That's like saying your house is secure if robbers didn't lock pick the front door but drove a truck though it.
You literally sign away your rights to this data when you click, "I agree to the terms." Having a VPN or whatever doesn't stop them. I suspect like most things
computer-y, the VPN's are or will be working jointly with the popular applications to get around that. It was sort of like when the anti-virus companies seemed to be working in concert with the virus makers. To say fB or any other app isn't actively working on a solution for that very situation is foolish, becauseMONEY.
Did you inadvertently agree with me? Oh Heavens. It appears you did. Exactly how does it help your argument? Oh it doesn't. LOL.
You are literally an end user gobbling up the presented "solutions" (much like your penchant for diseased cocks) which are laid out for autistic retards to grab up. The joke is by the time even cutting edge users like you employ these "safe guards," people already have hacked or are in the process of working around them. You're not even close to the leading edge of the curve. Which should be no surprise.
I have helped to put several people in federal prison. I am not ashamed of this. Case details will not be discussed, because retaliation.
I'm not trying to have an argument with you, nor am I butthurt. It's just clear that you're talking way out of your depth, so why would I take offense to what you post on the subject?
The point you missed was that companies are actively developing tools to undermine their userbase, and the most egregious of which are doing so by developing weaponized exploits to meet their ends. Governments do this regularly, and they too pay top dollar in R&D for 0 days.
With the case of the iphone encryption, I'm saying it comes down to poor opsec on the part of the owner for not using a much stronger password or using an encryption method that isn't vulnerable to six months of brute force. It's poor opsec to do your shady business on your personal phone. It's poor opsec to carry out an op where you're unlikely to survive without burning or burying everything first in the face of being captured or killed. It's poor opsec to taunt a government entity by posting a pic of you naked in bed with kids with your face blurred with some stock adobe tool. Poor opsec is using a "VPN or whatever" to log into your personal facebook as you've just associated that IP address with your identity. Opsec is keeping things compartmentalized. Opsec isn't just the "safe guards" you employ, but your behavior and acting with a bit of foresight.
Just because you click "I agree" doesn't mean you need to hand over everything on a platter and you are wise to be judicious about what data you allow them to have. It's about taking control of the data you choose to give them.
You thinking I agree with you because the possibility that all encryption can theoretically be broken further points out that you don't understand "computer-y" stuff. As of right now it would take millions of years to crack the government encryption standard of AES-256, so even a 1000x improvement in computing power would result in encryption that takes 1000 years to break. On the reverse side encryption also scales with computing power. I'll be long dead at this point.
You look at OP's list and feel chastised because you have no idea what 90% of it is or how 100% of it works, hence you have to attack it and the notion of people wanting privacy.
@umkemesik yet another good choice on giving mod to this self admitted federal snitch.
It depends on what you're talking about. The first amendment has exceptions as does every other amendment to the Constitution. While it may be up for debate as t o the Constitutionality however most people seem to agree with the Supreme Court's decisions. Take for example freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is okay unless that speech is harmful. For example CP, fraud, blackmail, perjury, obscenity, defamation (including libel and slander), fighting words, true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, solicitations to commit crimes, etc. Freedom of the press is okay unless your confidential source violated federal law in exposing government corruption. Then a judge could subpoena you and force you to name names. Same with libel, incitement, obscenity or fighting words. None of that is allowed in the press either. Or freedom of religion. The free exercise thereof has always been a point of contention in the Supreme Court. A few examples would be if you're say an indigenous American and use peyote in religious ceremonies. You can still be prosecuted or fired from your job. Or if you discriminate against gays in housing, employment or other services. Or if you're a Seventh Day Adventist and don't work on Saturdays. Or if a religious institution doesn't want to pay for contraceptives. Or if your church doesn't allow gay weddings.
Same goes with the right to peaceable assembly and the right to petition the goernment for a redress of grievances. The government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, require a permit, the government can also make special regulations that impose additional requirements for assemblies that take place near major public events and they can deny your permit if there's a risk of a riot, disorder or interference with traffic on public streets. Also, lobbying, right to file suits, certain kinds of libel actions involving government officials and SLAPP suits aren't protected either.
The point you missed was that companies are actively developing tools to undermine their userbase, and the most egregious of which are doing so by developing weaponized exploits to meet their ends. Governments do this regularly, and they too pay top dollar in R&D for 0 days.
You idiot. These people do these things BECAUSE they think the can get away with it.
Just because you click "I agree" doesn't mean you need to hand over everything on a platter and you are wise to be judicious about what data you allow them to have. It's about taking control of the data you choose to give them.
You'd be surprised what you agree to. Generally, you don't get to pick and choose what you agree to. Here's just an example of what you sign away.
You thinking I agree with you because the possibility that all encryption can theoretically be broken further points out that you don't understand "computer-y" stuff. As of right now it would take millions of years to crack the government encryption standard of AES-256, so even a 1000x improvement in computing power would result in encryption that takes 1000 years to break. On the reverse side encryption also scales with computing power. I'll be long dead at this point.
You underestimate the power and determination of a fed agency that has literally unlimited resources at it's disposal. Honestly, do you think they are going to have a Tandy 1000 running those NSA data farms? The USAF made a supercomputer out of xboxes for fucks sake.
You look at OP's list and feel chastised because you have no idea what 90% of it is or how 100% of it works, hence you have to attack it and the notion of people wanting privacy.
Wrong.
Absolutely not. But you've always been a sanctimonious and presumptuous shithead. I never argued whether or not you should or should not have privacy. My point is it's stupid to believe now you have any real privacy while using tech. Case in point-- wire tapping. While it's still difficult and illegal to tap someone's hardline phone without a very specific warrant, it is perfectly acceptable to intercept cell phone transmissions or trap IP phones data transmissions without any such legal due process.
If you're so fucking paranoid about being busted for MLP CP then perhaps you think about calling up a baby Bell and getting a land line installed.
It's not just the gubbermint either, all your data on your work computer is tracked, not by the gubbermint, but by your employer. Those free wifi hotspots? they have logs as well. And coupled with all the CCTV cameras set up in businesses and it doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out that someone's online using encryption when they are the only one in the store using encryption. Use all the firewalls, IP spoofers you want, it ain't gonna save you.
@umkemesik yet another good choice on giving mod to this self admitted federal snitch.
Why is law and order such a bad thing faggot. I bet you'd be screaming for the DA to act if something happened to you. In fact, people like you are usually the ones that scream the loudest.
the BoR isn't meant for corporations. It's meant for the fed gov. Which is why twitter and other such can outright ban people who say hateful things like "there are only two genders." The government doesn't collect your data on whether or not you were shopping for an athlete's foot cream.
Mostly, the government can only knowingly compile data which is given.
Yes all gun laws violate the 2nd. I agree. Which is why I'm a strong proponent of truth in sentencing laws and not adding to the rapidly ridiculous growing pile of meaningless gun laws. As so far as the data warehouse/resell companies, no one, not the feds, state or local officals gives a fuck because, MONEY = tax revenue. And the average user doesn't care.
All of this is moot however and has nothing to do with the gubbermint smashing safeguards in order to get what they want.
The current MO is the private companies collect the data and the government subpoenas for the data. Which is radically different than the fed actually collecting and housing the data. Do try to keep up. However, when those same companies refuse, I did give a few examples of the fed getting what they wanted anyway.
Again, the fed gubbermint, generally, can only collect data that is freely given. Which is why gun databases are so vehemently fought. Hawaii tried to use that very same database to restrict firearms. Another negative consequence is news media publishing such databases in a doxxing incident thinly veiled as a news article. Another is when the ACA when the databases were hacked -- what is it now three times?
www.nbcnews.com
