State Surveillance Thread

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Straggler said:

"The whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."

I agree with your post, Straggler.

There's also a kind of more basic point to make, which is that in the Uk (and America) the Government (and agencies) work for the people, they are our employees, in essence. We select and delegate them to perform various tasks for us - from organising our education and health and facilities and security.

Once the state starts reversing that fundamental fact, once the state starts to have us as subservient to them to have us as subject to their whims, then it's broken. It's gone wrong. The tail is wagging the dog.

[VILLAMARV]

24 minutes ago, Straggler said:

There is also the misconception that mass surveillance is the only option.  The secret service and the police already have the ability to snoop around potential bad guys, they just have to get a warrant to do so.  It is the targeted surveillance that is shown to have results and actually stop threats from happening.  Mass snooping does not help targeted surveillance, in fact it seems that it may hinder it by taking resources away to sift through the impossibly huge amount of data.

This is a really important point when framing the argument because it inhabits the middle ground and is based on reality not someone's perception of it. Like anything if we boil the premise down to the extreme views, of having no surveillance at all or doing everything in our ability to stop terrorist attacks, you'll end up with biased results. Obviously we'd all rather have it than do nothing, but the argument shouldn't be framed in terms that simple when talking about drafting legislation and writing things into Law. The US have laid the foundations for Trump or those that come after him to do some scary things with the Patriot Act and Obama's tenure adding Presidential powers over and above the constitution not to mention International Law by doing exactly that and we should take heed.

The other aspect to remember when framing the argument in the legal context is the word terrorist. A person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims (quoting the Consise OED 10th edition that is, as it's all I have to hand). Apply our thoughts on that definition to individuals or organisations throughout history. Mandela being the obvious stand out in most of our living memories. World wide coverage of his release from prison, leader of his country, world wide coverage of his death and all for a proven and convicted terrorist. In the modern world where does that leave gay rights activists in Russia? Womens rights movements in the Middle East? Opponents of the state in North Korea? All one violent act away from terrorism.

There is little opposition to the premise of a secret service on either side of the debate. That they should operate in legally grey areas with minimal accountability is kind of the point of them to my way of thinking. What I thought were interesting quotes from the beeb article, to quote myself from the last page were

Quote

In the past, UK cyber protection was largely situated within GCHQ in Cheltenham, which was criticised by businesses and others as overly secretive. The NCSC aims to be more public facing and accessible. It will also protect a far wider range of sectors, rather than just government and national security-related industries, like defence. GCHQ will still be the parent body for the NCSC, meaning it can draw on the intelligence agency's skills and capabilities.

Quote

He says results would be published openly to enhance collaboration. The centre will be publishing some of its code as open source, so that others can use the techniques. A five-year National Cyber Security Strategy was announced in November 2016, with £1.9bn of investment. The chancellor is also due to announce the creation of a "Industry 100" scheme, which will grant 100 NCSC secondments to private sector staff.

Sounds to me like a division of GCHQ to have a new public facing wing, presumably with some ability to take the flack legally. Also the idea of private contractors is obviously good in welcoming leaders in the field from around the globe as well as integrated collaboration with the military, but surely sounds a bit like copying the US model that led to Mr Snowden having the access to the information he did.

[limpid]

5 hours ago, Straggler said:

Please also bear in mind the capabilities that are available right now to snoop on us.  They are able to turn on the phone in your pocket to listen through the microphone and peer through the camera, the same with the laptop in-front of you.

While I broadly agree with the rest of your post. I'd like some evidence for these claims.

[Straggler]

3 minutes ago, limpid said:

While I broadly agree with the rest of your post. I'd like some evidence for these claims.

Here you go

https://tinyurl.com/jh8jhj4

Quote

GCHQ's targeted tools against individual smartphones are named after characters in the TV series The Smurfs. An ability to make the phone's microphone 'hot', to listen in to conversations, is named "Nosey Smurf". High-precision geolocation is called "Tracker Smurf", power management – an ability to stealthily activate an a phone that is apparently turned off – is "Dreamy Smurf", while the spyware's self-hiding capabilities are codenamed "Paranoid Smurf".

https://tinyurl.com/hdf6mcu

Quote

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

Given that they can destroy a centrifuge in an Iranian nuclear facility, the ability to take a recording from your camera on your phone / laptop is relatively childs play.  Hackers have been doing this for years:

https://tinyurl.com/z58z4yy

Quote

News that government intelligence agency GCHQ has been intercepting and storing webcam images from 1.8 million users of Yahoo’s chat service under the codename Optic Nerve is a reminder of how close we are to living in a surveillance state. Webcams, embedded in laptops and sitting on top of monitors, have become a standard piece of computing equipment, but it has now become clear that these can be used against us.

Hackers have been stealing webcam images of unsuspecting users for some time. The Metasploit tool comes with packages that make it easy for even a novice hacker to gain access to the webcam of any computer that doesn’t have all of the available patches and updates installed.

Equally worrying are reports that hackers could use the webcam on your laptop without even triggering the embedded warning light that indicates to the owner that the camera is in use.

 

[Davkaus]

It's been an open secret for years that they have these capabilities. Slightly less secret after Snowdon. Though, I imagine that Windows-hating @limpid's webcam is safer than most. I wouldn't trust that Android handset though. Just imagine what they've been working on since 2010?

If you're concerned about state surveillance, the only safe camera and microphone are ones physically unplugged that've been dismantled and verified. After all, if they can't find a software exploit, the NSA have a habit of tampering with their target's equipment, it's hard to believe GCHQ don't do the same. but if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.  

Edited February 15, 2017 by Davkaus

[villakram]

I think we're too far gone now. What Snowden released was pretty much 2010-2012 era tech and they could access anywhere they wanted at will. What can be done now? The UK gov passed legislation to retroactively legalize everything, and over here they rebranded the patriot act and passed something even worse.

Is it technically possible? If yes, then it is happening unless the cost is uber prohibitive, and even then, it'll be put into alpha/beta at least.

 

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

the Consise OED 10th edition that is, as it's all I have to hand

Sounds like you picked up a dodgy copy from a car boot sale.

[Davkaus]

15 minutes ago, villakram said:

 

Is it technically possible? If yes, then it is happening unless the cost is uber prohibitive, and even then, it'll be put into alpha/beta at least.

 

And they have an interesting definition of uber prohibitive. Even encryption is nothing but a stalling tactic. Our data that's encrypted end to end can't be read, not right now, but they're trying to store it all until it can be. Privacy from your government does not exist in the digital era.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Quote

The data center is alleged to be able to process "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all types of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital 'pocket litter'."^[7] In response to claims that the data center would be used to illegally monitor email of U.S. citizens, in April 2013 an NSA spokesperson said, "Many unfounded allegations have been made about the planned activities of the Utah Data Center, ... one of the biggest misconceptions about NSA is that we are unlawfully listening in on, or reading emails of, U.S. citizens. This is simply not the case."^[4]

In April 2009, officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in large-scale overcollection of domestic communications in excess of the federal intelligence court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.^[8]

In August 2012, The New York Times published short documentaries by independent filmmakers entitled The Program,^[9] based on interviews with a whistleblower named William Binney. The project had been designed for foreign signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection but, Binney alleged, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, controls that limited unintentional collection of data pertaining to U.S. citizens were removed, prompting concerns by him and others that the actions were illegal and unconstitutional. Binney alleged that the Bluffdale facility was designed to store a broad range of domestic communications for data mining without warrants.^[10]

Documents leaked to the media in June 2013 described PRISM, a national security electronic surveillance program operated by the NSA, as enabling in-depth surveillance on live internet communications and stored information.^[11][12] Reports linked the data center to the NSA's controversial expansion of activities, which store extremely large amounts of data. Privacy and civil liberties advocates raised concerns about the unique capabilities that such a facility would give to intelligence agencies.^[13][14] "They park stuff in storage in the hopes that they will eventually have time to get to it," said James Lewis, a cyberexpert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "or that they'll find something that they need to go back and look for in the masses of data." But, he added, "most of it sits and is never looked at by anyone."^[15]

The UDC was expected to store internet data as well as phone records from the controversial NSA call database when it opened in 2013.^[16]

In light of the controversy over the NSA's involvement in the practice of mass surveillance in the United States, and prompted by the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the Utah Data Center was hailed by The Wall Street Journal as a "symbol of the spy agency's surveillance prowess".^[17]

William Binney, a former NSA technical director, has said that the facility was built to store recordings and other content of communications, not only for metadata.^[18]

According to an interview with Edward Snowden, the project was initially known as the Massive Data Repository within NSA, but was renamed to Mission Data Repository due to the former sounding too "creepy".^[19]

 

[VILLAMARV]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Sounds like you picked up a dodgy copy from a car boot sale.

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's been an open secret for years that they have these capabilities. Slightly less secret after Snowdon. Though, I imagine that Windows-hating @limpid's webcam is safer than most. I wouldn't trust that Android handset though. Just imagine what they've been working on since 2010?

If you're concerned about state surveillance, the only safe camera and microphone are ones physically unplugged that've been dismantled and verified. After all, if they can't find a software exploit, the NSA have a habit of tampering with their target's equipment, it's hard to believe GCHQ don't do the same. but if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.  

Watch out for your headphones, too:

Quote

Cautious computer users put a piece of tape over their webcam. Truly paranoid ones worry about their devices’ microphones—some even crack open their computers and phones to disable or remove those audio components so they can’t be hijacked by hackers. Now one group of Israeli researchers has taken that game of spy-versus-spy paranoia a step further, with malware that converts your headphones into makeshift microphones that can slyly record your conversations.

Researchers at Israel’s Ben Gurion University have created a piece of proof-of-concept code they call “Speake(a)r,” designed to demonstrate how determined hackers could find a way to surreptitiously hijack a computer to record audio even when the device’s microphones have been entirely removed or disabled. The experimental malware instead repurposes the speakers in earbuds or headphones to use them as microphones, converting the vibrations in air into electromagnetic signals to clearly capture audio from across a room.

“People don’t think about this privacy vulnerability,” says Mordechai Guri, the research lead of Ben Gurion’s Cyber Security Research Labs. “Even if you remove your computer’s microphone, if you use headphones you can be recorded.”

It’s no surprise that earbuds can function as microphones in a pinch, as dozens of how-to YouTube videos demonstrate. Just as the speakers in headphones turn electromagnetic signals into sound waves through a membrane’s vibrations, those membranes can also work in reverse, picking up sound vibrations and converting them back to electromagnetic signals. (Plug a pair of mic-less headphones into an audio input jack on your computer to try it.)

But the Ben Gurion researchers took that hack a step further. Their malware uses a little-known feature of RealTek audio codec chips to silently “retask” the computer’s output channel as an input channel, allowing the malware to record audio even when the headphones remain connected into an output-only jack and don’t even have a microphone channel on their plug. The researchers say the RealTek chips are so common that the attack works on practically any desktop computer, whether it runs Windows or MacOS, and most laptops, too. RealTek didn’t immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment on the Ben Gurion researchers’ work. “This is the real vulnerability,” says Guri. “It’s what makes almost every computer today vulnerable to this type of attack.”

To be fair, the eavesdropping attack should only matter to those who have already gone a few steps down the rabbit-hole of obsessive counter-intelligence measures. But in the modern age of cybersecurity, fears of having your computer’s mic surreptitiously activated by stealthy malware are increasingly mainstream: Guri points to the photo that revealed earlier this year that Mark Zuckerberg had put tape over his laptop’s microphone. In a video for Vice News, Edward Snowden demonstrated how to remove the internal mic from a smartphone. Even the NSA’s information assurance division suggests “hardening” PCs by disabling their microphones, and repair-oriented site iFixit’s Kyle Wiens showed MacWorld in July how to physically disable a Macbook mic. None of those techniques—short of disabling all audio input and output from a computer—would defeat this new malware. (Guri says his team has so far focused on using the vulnerability in RealTek chips to attack PCs, though. They have to determine which other audio codec chips and smartphones might be vulnerable to the attack, They have to determine which other audio codec chips and smartphones might be vulnerable to the attack, but believe other chips and devices are likely also susceptible.)

In their tests, the researchers tried the audio hack with a pair of Sennheiser headphones. They found that they could record from as far as 20 feet away—and even compress the resulting recording and send it over the internet, as a hacker would—and still distinguish the words spoken by a male voice. “It’s very effective,” says Guri. “Your headphones do make a good, quality microphone.

There’s no simple software patch for the eavesdropping attack, Guri says. The property of RealTek’s audio codec chips that allows a program to switch an output channel to an input isn’t an accidental bug so much as a dangerous feature, Guri says, and one that can’t be easily fixed without redesigning and replacing the chip in future computers.

Until then, paranoiacs take note: If determined hackers are out to bug your conversations, all your careful microphone removal surgery isn’t quite enough—you’ll also need to unplug that pair of cheap earbuds hanging around your neck.

 

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Watch out for your headphones, too:

 

 

[Straggler]

Isn't it wonderful.  All the infrastructure to make the Orwellian nightmare come true is already installed in all of our homes.  Not only that we paid for it ourselves and spend huge chunks of disposable income to improve the quality of the picture and the sound.  We are even buying stuff that can see in the dark and measure our heart rate (xbox one).  All we need now is an autocratic ruler with the will to take advantage of it.  Can't see that happening in a modern democracy though....

 

Bigly

[limpid]

"They can turn your phone one remotely" has changed to "they can turn on a phone which is apparently off". Or "not turned off", but only if you've installed certain apps and ignored the permissions it asks for.

"They can view your webcam at any time" has turned into "they've backdoored certain software or web services to allow intercepts".

My phone isn't connected to anything when it's turned off. I know it doesn't page in more often than a GSM phone should do. I check the permissions on apps I install. If I was worried it would be about the Chinese (where the phone and the OS were made) than the NSA or GCHQ. It's easy to secure your webcam if yours doesn't have a hardwired activation light.

The problem is real, but don't oversell it.

[Xann]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Watch out for your headphones, too:

There's been rumours of audio infection for a while now. I posted about badBIOS a few years back.

 

The Yanks turned to the Israelis a few years back when Apple were reluctant to hand over encryption keys for criminal investigations. They can look at stuff if they want to.

 

My recollection of the Prism affair was that the US and the UK agreed to spy on each other to get around laws that forbade each country spying on its own citizens.

We don't need to bother now of course.

[BOF]

Linkywink

Oh Britain.  You so cray-zeh.

Quote

After Passing Worst Surveillance Law In A Democracy, UK Now Proposes Worst Anti-Whistleblowing Law

from the oh,-didn't-you-notice-you-had-been-consulted? dept

Last November, the UK government finally passed the Snooper's Charter, officially known as the Investigatory Powers Act. That was largely because everyone in the UK was too busy arguing over the Brexit mess to notice that Theresa May had finally achieved her goal, and pushed through what the Open Rights Group called "the most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy." Now that May has provided the police with the ability to rummage through a year's worth of every Brit's browsing history without a warrant, and given permission for the intelligence agencies to break into any computer and demand backdoors to be installed for any software or online service used in the UK, it seems she has a new target: whistleblowers. The Guardian reports on big changes the authorities want to make to the laws protecting government secrets, doubtless with an eye to dissuading any future Snowden/Guardian-type partnerships in the UK:

The [UK] government's legal advisers have been accused of launching a "full-frontal attack" on whistleblowers over proposals to radically increase prison sentences for revealing state secrets and prosecute journalists.

...

Draft recommendations from the legal advisers say the maximum prison sentence for leakers should be raised, potentially from two to 14 years, and the definition of espionage should be expanded to include obtaining sensitive information, as well as passing it on.

Although its good news that several old Official Secrets Acts are to be updated for the digital age, a Guardian editorial notes that the new approach would be broader and harsher than existing laws:

Reporters, as well as the whistleblowers whose stories they tell, would be under threat of sentences of up to 14 years, regardless of the public interest and even if there were no likelihood of damage.

Following the firestorm that greeted the announcement of this criminalization of core journalistic activities, and the absence of any public interest defense, May's spokesperson rushed out a comment:

I've seen the way this has been reported and it is fundamentally wrong. It is not, never has been and never will be the policy of the government to restrict the freedom of investigative journalism or public whistleblowing.

However, that response does not deny that journalists would indeed run the risk of 14 years in prison for handling documents leaked by whistleblowers. Instead, it seems, we are supposed to accept that the UK government will do the "right thing" here, and not actually use the new powers against investigative journalism. Leaving aside the fact that just a couple of months ago it passed the Snooper's Charter despite warnings about its excessive measures, there's another very good reason not to trust the UK government here. The Law Commission, the official body which produced the proposals, says on its Web site the following about how it drew up its plans:

In making its proposals the Law Commission met extensively with and sought the views of government departments, lawyers, human rights NGOs and the media.

The Guardian contacted some of those the Law Commission claims to have met, and they spoke of the very limited nature of the discussions:

[The human rights organization] Liberty said that while a meeting was held, it was "not on the understanding that this was a consultation".

…

Cathy James, the chief executive of Public Concern at Work, was also surprised to see her the whistleblowing charity listed as being involved.

She said: "I didn’t actually know we were listed in the document as we have been working our way through it so it is a big surprise to me. I believe my colleague met with them initially but we were not consulted in the normal sense of the word consultation. That is not what happened."

And the Guardian itself, also allegedly one of those whose views were sought, wrote that it had held only one preliminary meeting with the government's legal advisers, and that it was not consulted before being listed in the report.

Had it been just one organization making these comments, you could put it down to a misunderstanding. But for several people to report independently that they had only the briefest of meetings with the Law Commission, and that they did not regard those in any way as "consultations", suggests a conscious and shabby attempt to sneak out extreme proposals while pretending that they were the result of broad-based and in-depth discussions.

It is hard not to see this as yet another law that the UK government is determined to push through regardless of what anyone thinks, just as it did with the Snooper's Charter. Let's hope that this time the public and politicians aren't too distracted by the Brexit omnishambles to fight and defeat these changes that threaten not just whistleblowers and investigative journalism, but potentially British democracy itself.

 

[Xann]

11 minutes ago, BOF said:

Linkywink

Oh Britain.  You so cray-zeh.

Been meaning to drop this in the Tory thread.

From the party that stopped publishing figures that made them look like callous scum, and refused press requests for the information if they regarded them as 'vexatious'.

[Straggler]

15 minutes ago, limpid said:

"They can turn your phone one remotely" has changed to "they can turn on a phone which is apparently off". Or "not turned off", but only if you've installed certain apps and ignored the permissions it asks for.

"They can view your webcam at any time" has turned into "they've backdoored certain software or web services to allow intercepts".

My phone isn't connected to anything when it's turned off. I know it doesn't page in more often than a GSM phone should do. I check the permissions on apps I install. If I was worried it would be about the Chinese (where the phone and the OS were made) than the NSA or GCHQ. It's easy to secure your webcam if yours doesn't have a hardwired activation light.

The problem is real, but don't oversell it.

I don't believe I have oversold it.  The NSA and GCHQ have specifically designed software that can turn on your phone without you knowing about it.  Yes they have to hack your phone first, but it does not rely on Angry Birds exploits, as with all hacks/viruses the exploits they use change over time dependent on what vulnerabilities there are in apps or indeed in the OS.  The bit about ignoring permissions that the apps ask for is a massive red herring.  GCHQ designed hacks do not require user permission to run, they are very separate issues.  The leaky angry birds app sends insecure data that GCHQ can intercept and reveals personal info - this relies on you giving the appropriate permissions to said application

Nosey Smurf and Dreamy Smurf don't rely on any permissions given by you.  It arrives by a text that you won't know that you have received and it's activities don't show up to you because of paranoid smurf which hides the activity of the other Smurfs even from someone skilled enough to do phone repairs. More info here:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/06/gchqs_smurf_army_can_hack_smartphones_says_ed_snowden/

Quote

Privacy International has already aired much of what Snowden explained to Panorama, namely that a tool called “Nosey Smurf” turns on a phone's microphone to use it for audio surveillance. Snowden also discussed “Dreamy Smurf”, which he says can turn a phone on or off. “Tracker Smurf” is a geo-location tool that Snowden says offers a more accurate method of locating a phone and its carrier than using triangulation. Another Smurf can operate a smartphone's camera.

I have highlighted some of the exploits that have made it into the public domain, there are plenty of others, I'll add some more here as examples.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/06/surveillance-camera-laptop-smartphone-cover-tape

Quote

For years, security researchers have shown that hackers can hijack the cameras to spy on whomever is on the other end. To put that in perspective, think of all the things your devices have seen you do.

Such warnings have finally caught on. Last month, the FBI director, James Comey, told an audience: “I put a piece of tape over the camera because I saw somebody smarter than I am had a piece of tape over their camera.”

Yes that is the FBI director who is not sure that his own laptop cannot be compromised.  It is easy to secure your webcam as he did, with some sticky tape, but if you think that you have a software solution that is preventing GCHQ from spying on you, then you are sitting on a fortune.

later in that same article

Quote

So are we all being paranoid? Well, it’s not science fiction. Researchers in 2013 showed how they could activate a Macbook’s camera without triggering the green “this-thing-is-on” light. One couple claimed a hacker posted a video of them having sex after hacking their smart TV. And federal court records shows that the FBI does know how to use laptop cameras to spy on users as well.

So yes they backdoored Yahoo, but that is not the only exploit they have, it is just one example of how they can do it.  Also the semantics around "apparently turned off".  I think the point of that is that to you the phone appears to be turned off.  You have pressed the off button and the phone has shut down as usual.  However GCHQ can still remotely turn on the mike the camera and track where you are and all they have to do is send you a text that you won't know you got.  I can keep on going.....

[limpid]

So a report from a single authority says that smurfs are real and some vague handwavery about patched exploits.

People voluntarily installing Windows 10 - that's a problem if they value their privacy and the spying is open and documented in the T&Cs. Microsoft have a patent (ie. public documentation) about how they middleman Skype calls when requested. This is much more scary than the magic exploits which won't be burnt on ordinary people. State actors will get you if hey need to. They don't need to use magic exploits to do this.

To believe in magic exploits you'd have to believe companies like DarkTrace, Cylance, FireEye, Tanium, Carbon Black and Balabit are shills and are wilfully ignoring the NSA / GCHQ magic exploit traffic on the networks they monitor. Also all the network operators, wired and wireless. Also all the device manufacturers. I'm not saying that there is no collusion, but to warn ordinary people that these methods could be used against them is overselling the problem and increasing fear unnecessarily.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Been meaning to drop this in the Tory thread.

From the party that stopped publishing figures that made them look like callous scum, and refused press requests for the information if they regarded them as 'vexatious'.

No need to worry, monday:

On 13/02/2017 at 09:30, snowychap said:

Government advisers accused of 'full-frontal attack' on whistleblowers

 

[Xann]

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

No need to worry, monday:

Nice one Cyril