Started by kylie, September 06, 2013, 03:57:45 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteThe files show that the National Security Agency and its UK counterpart GCHQ have broadly compromised the guarantees that internet companies have given consumers to reassure them that their communications, online banking and medical records would be indecipherable to criminals or governments.
Quote"Project Bullrun deals with NSA's abilities to defeat the encryption used in specific network communication technologies. Bullrun involves multiple sources, all of which are extremely sensitive." The document reveals that the agency has capabilities against widely used online protocols, such as HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), used to protect online shopping and banking.
Quote from: Katataban on September 06, 2013, 06:47:36 AMTbh there's quite a bit of doubt that anything is safe from government agencies. Though Prism might be limited, I'd be surprised if there aren't at least five or six back up programmes.A good point he makes. Write sensitive information on an unconnected device. Encrypt and send. But even then if they'd want the info they'd get it. The reality is, you can be paranoid about his, but the NSA simply doesn't care about 99% of the info on the net. Or rather they don't have the resources to care. So your info is quite likely safe, simply because it doesn't meet their criteria, and gets dumped. If you really want to avoid detection, go back to pen and paperOne other tip I always give people is, make it expensive as hell for them to get your info. One simple way to do that is by creating as much traffic as you can. If people start doing this en masse, it will become less cost effective for agencies to gather data.
Quote from: kylie on September 06, 2013, 03:57:45 AM Not here for the politics just now... Just wondering if anyone really thinks they know. If all the recent reporting based on Snowden documents is based on reports of actual government capabilities, then what is likely to still be secure? I must admit this article struck me a little given the recent discussion of switching Elliquiy to all HTTPS, as well. For example: British intel claims that since 2010, they have gained unprecedented levels of access to previously unreadable, encrypted material from Hotmail, Google, Yahoo and Facebook. Combined with wiretaps of fiberoptic cables, this makes for a huge trove of info that the users believed was secure. NSA hosts a standards agency used to vet software for US government use, which in fact inserts backdoors into encryption software. Moreover, NSA receives info on the design of other common encryption software -- and sometimes forces the addition of vulnerabilities -- through "industry relationships." Snowden has said that certain unspecified, strong encryption systems are still effective IF the computers using them are generally well-secured as a unit...... So if all this is true, what would strong encryption entail? What is generally safe, if not HTTPS and not necessarily those shopping sites holding your bank account or those large providers holding your email? Ahem.
Quote from: Inkidu on September 06, 2013, 07:38:39 AMBecause humans have never had a history of escalation in anything. :3Yeah, it might make it cost-ineffective, or it might cause them to create some kind of new data-gathering program. I always bank on the latter.
Page created in 0.033 seconds with 22 queries.