Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Reading your posts.
Vault 7 - Massive Wikileaks release on CIA eavesdropping
- Thread starter squirrelp
- Start date
mikey mikey
Active Member
Being all you, all day every day.
Fuck, no wonder you're miserable.
Fuck, no wonder you're miserable.
mikey mikey
Active Member
Desperate stuff.
mikey mikey
Active Member
Sure I did. 
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
No it's not . They Hoover up info on everyone and store it in case you ever cross them . It's about power and control . These are powerful people who want to control everything . You know this already of course .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
And yet they sent terrorists in their employ out to murder human rights solicitors such as Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson . And sent scores of other terrorists out to murder hundreds of other innocents .
mauvais
on reddit or something
Only if (a) someone leaked the research or (b) the exploits were actively introduced at their behest. For the most part, at least as I understand it, exploits are found, not made. Legislation may either prevent best practice security or demand systematic access to data, but I wouldn't call that an exploit either.
mikey mikey
Active Member
Well would I be right in thinking, mauvais, that you consider none of the practices exposed so far from the Vault 7 leaks to be objectionable?
If so, that's very interesting. What brings you to this "nothing-to-see-here" conclusion?
If so, that's very interesting. What brings you to this "nothing-to-see-here" conclusion?
mauvais
on reddit or something
Well, to the extent that I've looked at what Vault 7 is really about, which is not in any detail, I neither consider them to be objectionable or beyond objection. I don't have any inherent issue with the development of capability, the means, only its specific application, particularly unlawful ones.
I've previously worked in or parallel to some relevant areas here and I have some idea about the context it operates in. I have a balanced, mostly neutral opinion about that. I prefer not to lend my own efforts to furthering it but I simultaneously don't object - 'it's complicated'. However, that aside, most of my opinion is derived from nothing to do with the authorities, and instead from basic security principles: not least, security of some system isn't compromised - leaks aside - because the attackers have breached it, it was compromised from the beginning because that exploit was possible. For example, a TV with a microphone should be assumed to be a risk until you prove otherwise, with or without the CIA ever hacking it.
Therefore security research is effectively neutral; it's what you do with the information that matters. Work with the affected parties to resolve it before it's used negatively, good. Use it for private and illegal gain, bad. Use it in the course of your work as state security services, ??? - who knows.
But to make public this treasure trove of capability, to the extent that it's relevant and matters, you had better know. You need to be sure that the latter, the work of the state, is either universally negative, or that you can accept the collateral damage you cause by degrading capability in the name of transparency. I don't think anyone does or even can know that.
That for me is why the release of this, as an action, is much more interesting than what it describes. And why this is distinct from prior Wikileaks stuff, diplomatic cables etc, because it's basically a threat in itself. If this leak changes the MO of a terrorist such that they become inscrutable, and people die, will it be justifiable? The answer is a complex political one rather than a simple binary, and probably we'd never know anyway, but it's still a question that needs to be asked.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
mikey mikey
Active Member
Thank you for your considered response mauvis. I read it with interest but came away with the gist of it that was both depressing and disappointing: The thrust of your post was that while the revelations about the activities of the CIA are no cause for alarm, but rather dissinterest and apathy, while Wikileaks could be guilty of terrible but unforeseeable consequences, none of which are knowable by anyone and therefore require no substantiation. Indeed, any and all future terrorist activity can be laid at wikileaks door.
As for hostile spy agencies or terrorist hackers, well according to Lee Mathews, the expert writing for Forbes, a there was nothing that the cyber security experts and hackers didn't know.
WikiLeaks Vault 7 CIA Dump Offers Nothing But Old News
Those who aren't with the State are aiding the terrorists.
As for hostile spy agencies or terrorist hackers, well according to Lee Mathews, the expert writing for Forbes, a there was nothing that the cyber security experts and hackers didn't know.
WikiLeaks Vault 7 CIA Dump Offers Nothing But Old News
Those who aren't with the State are aiding the terrorists.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
If that's what you "came away with" from his considered response, you're an even bigger moron than I thought and you should spend the rest of the day punching yourself in the face.
mikey mikey
Active Member
You called Manning a fuckwit and hadn't even found out what information she had leaked. (i.e. widespread illegal torture). I welcome your insults because I welcome the chance to be included in such company as Manning. In fact I' d be worried if you had anything postive to say about me.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Wrong. I called Manning a fuckwit and made no comment on what she'd leaked other than it wasn't on Dot's list. My only other comment on the nature of leaked info was about Snowden's.
So that's both mine and Mauvais' posts that you've totally failed to comprehend, or rather, have pretended are saying something else.
You can't even concoct decent lies!
mikey mikey
Active Member
post 168
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Genius. Now, what does that say?
(Clue: It doesn't say what you are pretending it does)
Last edited:
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
There are a couple of points here though, the state has acted badly in the past, Hillsborough, Iraq war for example.
Another point is that this is a new capability, they haven't had the opportunity to gain this amount of in-depth intelligence before. Why should we trust them with it?. Why should they be able to listen through my tv?
mauvais
on reddit or something
It's not new, it's just evolved. Fifty years ago they would have physically tapped your phone or installed a bug in your home.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Or they could have read my mail, seen what newspapers I buy. But now they can do that to lots of people, it's a different capability when it's on that scale.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Indiscriminate surveillance exerting a chilling effect on people exercising their hard-won right to have any sort of say, no matter how compromised by class power, in the political process.
Indiscriminate subversion of the security controls that ordinary people rely on to avoid e.g. having their bank account emptied by opportunistic criminal shitheads.
The spooks have not made any kind of convincing case to justify the damage they've caused to democracy and personal security, and apparently don't feel any need to do so. As far as I'm aware, they don't even seem to acknowledge these issues, they just point to terror/nonce threats as a blanket justification.
If they were actually on our side, these brutally obvious contradictions between their claim to be acting in the public interest, and the actual interest of the actually existing public, wouldn't be so starkly evident.
Indiscriminate subversion of the security controls that ordinary people rely on to avoid e.g. having their bank account emptied by opportunistic criminal shitheads.
The spooks have not made any kind of convincing case to justify the damage they've caused to democracy and personal security, and apparently don't feel any need to do so. As far as I'm aware, they don't even seem to acknowledge these issues, they just point to terror/nonce threats as a blanket justification.
If they were actually on our side, these brutally obvious contradictions between their claim to be acting in the public interest, and the actual interest of the actually existing public, wouldn't be so starkly evident.
Last edited:
mauvais
on reddit or something
On the latter, nothing of the sort. But it is very likely, in my opinion, that lawful intercepts and so on have been critical in preventing terrorist incidents and saved lives. I can't and will most likely never be able to substantiate that, let alone quantify it, but I do believe it to be true. What's more, very few people on earth are in a position to substantiate or refute it, and probably none of those can do either in its entirety. Perhaps the leaker is one of those better-informed people, but I doubt it. So they probably know not what they do, be it good or bad.
On the idea that it generates apathy, not really. I suppose it's a bit like the difference between worrying about the very & total existence of guns versus the way that, in some places, guns are all too easily available and the negative effects of that. I don't particularly care about the procurement or existence of surveillance capability, I care about how it's (mis)used, and this leak doesn't appear to enlighten us any on the latter.
This is probably largely true, and why I've been cautious about calling this whole affair particularly relevant. Security is a moving target, and this is probably aging and incomplete data. Nonetheless this is unlikely to be an absolute.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The fact that there's been no mass terror attack on the UK for over 10 years strongly indicates that you're right. The people that would carry out such attacks haven't just changed their minds and decided that we're all ok after all. There are other people who are stopping them, and making their lives very difficult. I wonder who they might be ...
Last edited:
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Their paymasters . Britains key ally in the gulf , Saudi Arabia, and the number one funder , ideological base and exporter of Islamic terror worldwide . Not their telly . And the Saudis can turn it on and off like a tap .
Similar threads
