# Vault 7: Wikileaks Release on CIA Hacking Tools



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

Admins: please move if you feel this thread should be in a different location

Link to the wikileaks page on Vault 7.  This is going to be a multi-part release.

This is going to be devastating - and you can parse the devastation according to your political stance.  This is a massive release, and is going to blow the lid off of CIA cyber ops.  It is also going to reveal to the public (finally) just how compromised their/our every digital action really is.

Thoughts?

*UPDATE MARCH 23:*

Wikileaks has released the next installment in the Vault 7 documents: Dark Matter.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> Thoughts?



Yep.  And I'm happy to put my flame-suit on and prepare to be napalmed by the "privacy-at-any-cost" folks on this board.

In today's world I have accepted that "they" are listening to everything I say into an electronic device and likely everything I type.  That Pandora's box has long been opened and will never close. 

I believe without question that nothing changed when NSA said that they switched 'off' specific listening that they were doing, and I am okay with that.

Do I have a right to privacy?  Yep. 

Am I willing to sacrifice some of those rights so that "bad guys" can be easier listened to and tracked?  Yep.

I consider Snowden and Manning to be traitors to their nation.
I consider Julian Assange to be an enemy of the state.

There are brilliant men and women who protect this nation via boots-on-the-ground and fingers-on-a-keyboard.  I am not the one who will be holding them back because I fear they might hear me discussing something "private" on my cellphone.  They don't care, and I don't know them. 

Just how I feel.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Do I have a right to privacy? Yep.
> 
> Am I willing to sacrifice some of those rights so that "bad guys" can be easier listened to and tracked? Yep.





			
				Ben Franklin said:
			
		

> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



Your position is so common, (and flawed) that places like /r/privacy have standing links to debunk the basic premise: 

I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (link)
Lenders are turning to social media to assess borrowers (link)

Why surveillance is not OK (link)
Furthermore, there is the question of proliferation:




			
				Wikileaks said:
			
		

> *'Cyberwar' programs are a serious proliferation risk*





			
				Wikileaks said:
			
		

> Cyber 'weapons' are not possible to keep under effective control.
> 
> While nuclear proliferation has been restrained by the enormous costs and visible infrastructure involved in assembling enough fissile material to produce a critical nuclear mass, cyber 'weapons', once developed, are very hard to retain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> Your position is so common, (and flawed) that places like /r/privacy have standing links to debunk the basic premise:



I accept that, and am open to changing my opinion. 

It was purposeful that I signed my post with "just how I feel".

Thank you for posting those links, I will read tonight after I get home from work.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

No worries - hope I didn't come on too strong.  

These kinds of ideas are _very widely_ held.  They are also _very wrong_.  Following this logical path will lead you to blind acceptance of any gov-sanctioned action. 

Not to get all Godwin on you, but this is the sort of worldview/belief-system that allowed Germans (who weren't all 'evil') to participate in one of the most heinous coordinated actions of all history.  To be clear, I AM NOT accusing you of anything.  I am merely pointing out the dangers of a worldview that grants moral/ethical concessions to the government just because they are the government.

I hope to have some interesting discussion here, perhaps after you've had a chance to read the articles!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 7, 2017)

_"The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive."_

The extent and potential dangers of proliferating cyber ops weapons concerns me...but so does the data exfiltration by people in the CCI.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I consider Snowden and Manning to be traitors to their nation.
> I consider Julian Assange to be an enemy of the state.



Just to stir the old pot in response to these two statements...

What nation?  Do you imagine that there is a single, monolithic 'American' nation?  If you look at what a nation actually is, or rather, what nation actually means, I think it is clear that there is no such American nation.  And there never has been.

JA _may well be_ an enemy of the state.  But what if the state is an enemy of the people?  Many, if not most/all states have engaged in what most people would agree are immoral actions.  If the state is engaged in immoral action _against_ its people, perhaps the state is the enemy of the people, and not the other way around.

Where do you draw the line?  

If we (the US) were to start rounding up (for the sake of argument) Muslims and putting them in detainment camps across America, oh I don't know - maybe like Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps (oh wait, that's not PC - 'detainment' camps), would that be okay?  If the government uses this cyber power to quiet dissent, is that okay?  If they determine that veterans, especially those who care about the constitution or display the Gadsden flag, are likely home-grown-terrorists-in-the-making, is that okay?

Whatever happened to "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people"?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> What nation? Do you imagine that there is a single, monolithic 'American' nation? If you look at what a nation actually is, or rather, what nation actually means, I think it is clear that there is no such American nation. And there never has been.



Damn it!

Let me live in my bubble of ignorance where everything is cut and dry, black and white, good and bad, etc...etc.  

LOL

I look forward to reading your links later tonight.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Mar 7, 2017)

Who cares.

Tell me right now how you've been affected by this and I might pay attention.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> Who cares.
> 
> Tell me right now how you've been affected by this and I might pay attention.



You're entirely missing the point.  Again, not to go all Godwin, but this exact 'argument' might have been used by those Germans who weren't personally involved in the holocaust.  After all, if we were both Germans of acceptable genetic lineage, how would the holocaust have affected us, personally?

At some point, those who ignore threats to liberty must do so willfully.  Stick your head in the sand if you wish.  Enjoy your in-group status, while it lasts.



			
				Albert Einstein said:
			
		

> The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.





			
				Sergei Bondarchuck said:
			
		

> All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing



This isn't a matter of "I've been personally damaged by this, therefore it must end."  It is a matter of principle and systems.  This is wrong in principle.  And the system exists, and _will_ be used.  Regardless of whether you agree with the person in power who gets to use it.  And guess what... that person will change over time.

To answer your question directly, here is how I am affected: for all intents and purposes, every electronic communication/interaction that I engage in in surveilled and logged.  I know this.  This causes me to self-censor.  This chills speech, and subverts the very core of our so-called democracy.  Go read Mill regarding the open society for more.  I know that my communications are logged and stored.  What if a political position I hold today is deemed illegal tomorrow?  Or worse, not even illegal, but merely undesirable?  We are all of us criminals.

Stop.  Read that last sentence again.

Believe it.  If you don't, consider reading something like Three Felonies A Day and updating your worldview.

It's all well and good to grant power to a Caesar (think Gaius Julius), but then you tend to get Herod's and Caligula's.  Once a power exists, it _will_ be used, and eventually abused.  Just look at the Interstate Commerce Clause!


----------



## The Hate Ape (Mar 7, 2017)

It reads to me like the worst thing that is happening from this isn't the surveillance but the what-if types and guys who believe the world is doomed.

You sound like a guerrilla fighter right now.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

The problem is that these leaks keep happening.  Sounds like deeper background checks are needed for clearances and all current employees need a fresh poly.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

The Hate Ape said:


> You sound like a guerrilla fighter right now.



The worst thing isn't surveillance itself, but what it can be used for.  Those of us on the gov 'team' can feel all warm and fuzzy about these tools for the moment.  But if we pretend that they pose no risk, and that the 'team' can't change, we are being willfully ignorant.

It's not that the world is doomed.  It's that secret powers, used in secret, against secret targets, by secret organizations - avoid oversight.  Necessarily, by their very nature.

And unchecked powers, used behind closed doors, to manipulate public opinion on behalf of those wielding the power, is inherently anti-democratic.  It is inherently against all of the principles that supposedly make this a great nation.

I may well sound like a guerrilla fighter now.  So did the French Resistance in the face of a Vichy government.  We all acknowledge the potential for government to go off the rails - why then is it some kind of condemnation to be skeptical of the government?  Clearly law != morality.  So why should passivity and compliance in the face of governmental overreach = good citizenship?




RackMaster said:


> The problem is that these leaks keep happening.



This *IS* a problem, but it's a totally different problem.  Also, (for the sake of argument) if what the gov is doing _is_ illegal/immoral/whatever then shouldn't we _expect_ these kinds of leaks?  Don't we at least pretend to place moral culpability on even the lowliest soldier carrying out orders?


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> This *IS* a problem, but it's a totally different problem.  Also, (for the sake of argument) if what the gov is doing _is_ illegal/immoral/whatever then shouldn't we _expect_ these kinds of leaks?  Don't we at least pretend to place moral culpability on even the lowliest soldier carrying out orders?



I guess the evil wrongdoing is so wide spread that these whistleblowers can't use internal mechanisms.  What makes them the judge and jury to decide what is actually against the law?  There's a reason why things are compartmentalized.  Who's to say these leaks aren't sold to the enemy first and then published just to "embarrass" the government, increase distrust in the system, etc.. Those behind the leaks are criminals and traitors.  They do it in the name of keeping government in check but by doing that; they undermine the authority of all government.

 I've worked around all sorts of sensitive data, with access and authority to snoop around.  But not once did I feel the need to make copies or break any oath or legal obligation to get my 15 mins of fame.  That's all they want, fame and some just want to watch the world burn.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 7, 2017)

It's sad to me that we even needed a "Whisleblower" law to protect people.

First, it's sad that we have situations that need to be "blown."

Secondly, it's sad that since some of those situations do exist, even with the law in place, you are still done once you tell.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Mar 7, 2017)

Do we honestly believe here that as societies and governments significantly advance in technology that society will continue to hold the advantage over government?

Spoiler alert - this will absolutely happen and continue to grow as long as we continue to put an ip address on our lives and everything we interact with.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Damn it!
> 
> Let me live in my bubble of ignorance where everything is cut and dry, black and white, good and bad, etc...etc.



There's some real truth here.  We desperately _want_ the world to be black and white.  We are literally hard-wired to prefer B&W.  I wrote about Categorical Perception in a blog post a while back.  It's *hard* to overcome cognitive dissonance.  We don't *want* to overcome the indoctrination we've been subjected to throughout our entire lives...



RackMaster said:


> What makes them the judge and jury to decide what is actually against the law?



Great question, though I'd slightly alter it: What makes them the judge and jury to decide what is immoral/unethical/inconsistent with the constitution?  Well, we do!  Just like every promotion, when the US Gov places "special trust and confidence" in us.  When we held individuals accountable in the Nuremberg Trials, despite the evidence of Milgram's experiment.

We hold each member accountable for engaging in immoral/unethical action - even when they are lawful!  ...Again, members of the German military were under lawful orders.  Lawful != (that's "Does Not Equal") Ethical.



RackMaster said:


> That's all they want, fame and some just want to watch the world burn.



That's a pretty sweeping assertion.  Do you reject the possibility of loyal dissent?  Of patriotic citizens acting in the face of what they see as the destruction of the values that made their nation/country/state 'great' in the first place?


----------



## Gunz (Mar 7, 2017)

I don't reject the possibility of _loyal dissent, _but how does one tell the difference between what constitutes loyal dissent and what constitutes breaking one's oath and the law by exfiltrating confidential data to the public? If we can't anticipate with certainty the consequences of either action, then we can't reliably know which action is the more correct.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 7, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> I don't reject the possibility of _loyal dissent, _but how does one tell the difference between what constitutes loyal dissent and what constitutes breaking one's oath and the law by exfiltrating confidential data to the public? If we can't anticipate with certainty the consequences of either action, then we can't know which action is the more reliable.



One's own conscience!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 7, 2017)

Agoge said:


> One's own conscience!



Rog that, my Brother...but I meant how do we, on the outside looking in, determine what to believe? Is it a leak for the good of mankind or is it fucking treachery? Do we build the guy a monument or give him a blindfold and cigarette and shoot his ass?


----------



## Grunt (Mar 7, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Rog that, my Brother...but I meant how do we, on the outside looking in, determine what to believe? Is it a leak for the good of mankind or is it fucking treachery? Do we build the guy a monument or give him a blindfold and cigarette and shoot his ass?



I would say that to an extent, that is based on the individual reader's opinion. I say that only because I have seen different scenarios played out where -- military personnel like us here -- can't really come to a unanimous decision as to certain people's actions equaling treason. There is the letter of a law and then there is the spirit of the law...which one is most important differs with everyone.

With all that said, I can't give you a concrete answer for that, Brother. Wish I could!


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

Ocoka One said:


> Is it a leak for the good of mankind or is it fucking treachery?



Why does it have to be one or the other?  Doesn't this question presume that the will of the government = good of mankind?  If the government is working against the 'good of the people' (whatever that might be - not what I want to argue about), then wouldn't treachery, even treason, be for the good of mankind?

I guess, in the end, we all _have_ to rely on our own conscience.  In a world where basically no one agrees on what counts as ethical/moral (in the details), we have little else to which we can appeal.

If Snowden/Manning could be shown to have materially hurt the United States (government), but helped the people, how do you judge them?



Agoge said:


> There is the letter of a law and then there is the spirit of the law...which one is most important differs with everyone.


What do we do when the law is broken?  If a law is bad, should we give it deference?


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

I'm sure there's some that believe what they are doing is _Loyal Dissent_ but in reality it is not.  We are a society of laws, without we'd be nothing more than the shitholes we fight in.  There's ways of reporting internally without repercussions and if they don't trust one avenue, there's others.  But we've just ignored and thrown out that system of laws as soon as the only "reliable" means of redress is to toss it out into the ether and let the media (with their own bias), the masses and our enemies for analysis.  They aren't picking specific topics, they are copying mass amounts of data and dumping it without concern for its contents because they could never do it themselves.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> If a law is bad, should we give it deference?



If a law is bad...it's bad...and it should be identified as such and repealed. No deference afforded to it.

The problem with these types of issues, is that there are always two sides that seem feasible to a lot of people. For everyone that sees it as possibly treasonous, there are as many that see it as good and necessary. Again, it's a conscience issue that I can't give a simple answer to.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> entire post


Lot of assertions there without anything to back them up.

I think one could make an excellent argument that many of the places we tend to visit are actually _more_ lawful than home.  What is sharia if not a comprehensive system of law?

When the government - creator, executor, and arbiter _of _the law - cannot itself follow the law (that it wrote, etc...) what value does that law have?

Do you _really_ believe that there are ways of reporting internally "without repercussion"?  Maybe with minimal repercussion, as long as what you are reporting doesn't ruffle too many feathers.

Let me put it to you a different way.  I think the system itself is fundamentally broken.  You are arguing from the perspective that it isn't.  Our words are sort of flying past one another.  What would the gov have to do for you to loose faith in it?  And if there isn't anything, then I'd suggest that your faith is blind.  If you do have a line, and you honestly examine it - chances are good that it's been crossed many times already.

Let's not pretend that _any_ government is some altruistic organization filled with moral saints and Mother Theresa's.



Agoge said:


> The problem with these types of issues, is that there are always two sides that seem feasible to a lot of people. For everyone that sees it as possibly treasonous, there are as many that see it as good and necessary. Again, it's a conscience issue that I can't give a simple answer to.



Nice point.  So if reality is complex, full of nuance and subtlety, why are we trying to impose a binary either-or kind of description on it?  Kind of fails from the get-go doesn't it?  Example: it is sometime after the sun has started to set, but before darkness has fully taken hold.  Is it day or night?  Well, reality is more complicated than that.  It's not digital/discrete - it's analog/continuous.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> Nice point.  So if reality is complex, full of nuance and subtlety, why are we trying to impose a binary either-or kind of description on it?  Kind of fails from the get-go doesn't it?  Example: it is sometime after the sun has started to set, but before darkness has fully taken hold.  Is it day or night?  Well, reality is more complicated than that.  It's not digital/discrete - it's analog/continuous.



Very well stated my Brother!


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 7, 2017)

There is a quote somewhere (I can't for the life of me find it) saying that liberty is only efficiently eroded over time and  through incremental efforts, and as such, incremental erosions of liberty no matter how small must be viciously guarded against. Almost always these erosions are in the name of national security. The fear here is that some day in the next 20-30 years there will be a Minority Report situation which will inevitably lead to a Big Brother situation. Then it's only a matter of time before the thought police come for you because you had a double-plus-ungood thought about the government. Look at the rapid advances in software, computer technology, and neuroscience, and it is not all that far-fetched to believe that a state with the power to surveil nearly everything about your life will eventually have the power to predict your behavior and thoughts. The private sector already does shit like this with metadata and statisticians for marketing purposes. The basis of the argument against such surveillance is that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and such vigilance actively works to prevent every dystopian novel ever. Sure it sounds like some worry-wart sci fi bullshit, but would anyone here really put it past our government that this could possibly happen? And if you do, I point you toward the current utter lack of civilized intelligent discourse anywhere that is not ShadowSpear and the willful ignorance of the masses.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 7, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> Lot of assertions there without anything to back them up.
> 
> I think one could make an excellent argument that many of the places we tend to visit are actually _more_ lawful than home.  What is sharia if not a comprehensive system of law?
> 
> ...



Your brought up morals, yet state a Sharia based society could be more lawful; pick a side.  In a Sharia based society, these whistle blowers would already be beheaded in public; not that I don't think that's a bad idea.  But what are we without morals?  I know governments are full of moral saints BUT not everyone is inherently out to get you.

There's numerous ways of reporting without "repercussions", internal to the government there's many levels to choose from; just pick one you trust.  And I'd suggest they chose the route with the most repercussions, they are now traitors and enemies of the state.  

I never said the system isn't broken, I just can't get behind the thought that the whole system is broken.  To have that thought, than how can you trust anyone?


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 7, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Your brought up morals, yet state a Sharia based society could be more lawful; pick a side.


I was trying to say something similar to you!  I keep bringing up morals/ethics because you seem to be operating on the assumption that there is some inherent correlation between law and morality/ethics.  I absolutely reject this!  Many of the most heinous and evil mass atrocities in the history of the world have been enacted via the law. 

And yet, people cling to the fairy tale notion that following the law more or less means living a moral life.

My point is that _just because_ something is against the law, that does not mean it is wrong.  Any more than something would be right _just because_ it isn't against the law.  Many laws are themselves immoral/unethical.



RackMaster said:


> There's numerous ways of reporting without "repercussions"


Not to overstep myself here, but I'd suggest that you've never attempted to challenge the gov (institution of your choice) on a matter that cuts to the core assumptions of government.  Every instance I know of  1st/2nd hand resulted in: getting ignored (best case), getting peepee smacked, career destruction.

Now, that barely amounts to anecdote, let alone evidence.  I don't want to claim that these handful of cases represent all possible cases.  But when I combine them with a decade+ of observing and thinking about how systems and bureaucracies operate, I think I'm identifying a pattern.

Power is diffuse at the individual level; it is concentrated at the organizational.  No regular person will be as powerful as their organization.  Organizations can get away with hammering the nail that sticks out.  It's a whole hell of a lot easier that instituting organizational change.  Why do you think we have repeated instances of the same bad behaviors over and over?  Because no one ever bothered to change the system.

Which segues to the next point:



RackMaster said:


> I never said the system isn't broken, I just can't get behind the thought that the whole system is broken.


I believe it was Einstein who said something like, "Doing something again and again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity." 

*Time for an analogous thought experiment*:
Imagine a machine that takes inputs and produces widgets.  It's supposed to give us different kinds of widgets depending on what we input (say, raw materials).  We talk a lot about the machine's design, and the principles that drive it's internal behavior.  At some point however, we notice that it isn't producing the widgets we want.  We still talk a lot about the design and principles, but we can't see inside the machine any more - it was upgraded with radiation shielding at some point.  Soon enough, the machine is not only producing widget we don't want, but ones that actually hurt us!

Now we start _arguing_ about the design and principles.  But the machine - it's a smart machine, with the ability to upgrade itself.  It was also built generations ago.  Let's think of it as code for a second (like software with the ability to upgrade).  Even though we can see the 'source code' from the original design document, we can't see the current code.  It has been intentionally hidden from us.  We can maybe see parts of it, and we still see (most) of the output widgets.

So we have a partially black box.  We know the original code used to program it.  We know only what it allows us to about its current code base.  Some of its widgets hurt us.  Some might even be 'evil'.  But hey, most of them are still arguably useful.

Any machine that does not operate as intended is, (I would argue) by definition, broken.  Our black box is broken.  It seems to me that the sensible reaction is to find out _why_ it is broken.  There's no magic keebler elves climbing into it every once in a while to mess with the output.  The machine _itself_ is creating the problems.  It is the system that needs fixing.

So I hope that actually helped to clarify my thinking.  Complaining about the results of a system, but rejecting the possibility that the system is the cause of those results is a common human tendency I have a very hard time sympathizing with.  It's like the person trying to dig themselves out of a hole.  Or using shitty disposable razors to shave, complaining about it, buying ointments and such to treat the symptoms, but then going back for more shitty razors.



RackMaster said:


> To have that thought, than how can you trust anyone?


This is the best question I've heard in quite a long time.  One, I think, that is actually pretty illuminating. 

But first, to answer: I don't! Not unequivocally.  I retain my moral prerogative and *obligation* to make each decision myself.  I can accept expertise, advice, guidance, etc.  But none of that abrogates my (and your, and everyone else's) moral obligation to take responsibility for their own actions.  I do not let the government live my life for me.  I do not trust the FDA to never allow anything on the market that might harm me, I do not trust speed limits to keep me out of accidents, I do not trust government bureaucrats to know best how all of our children ought to be raised, etc. etc. etc.

So, I think this question or worry is might show us _why_ we don't want to believe that the system (whatever system that might be, from the federal gov, to local gov, from your unit, to your church, from your company to your club) *is* the problem.

Lets stop stacking bandaids on top of each other, stop treating the symptoms, and start dealing with the root problem.



Dienekes said:


> .


Nice post.  I'd request some paragraphing so that it's a bit easier to read.

You're spot on about future uses being a primary (not secondary) concern here.  Not only do these powers belong to the current 'administration' (I'm using that loosely to refer to whoever is in power - not necessarily just the Presidency), but every succeeding one.  Not only do _these_ powers pass down, but they will expand, as all governmental powers inevitably do.



Dienekes said:


> it is not all that far-fetched to believe that a state with the power to surveil nearly everything about your life will eventually have the power to predict your behavior and thoughts


Not only is it not far-fetched, this is reality.  Now.  Combine enough data points from disparate sources you can predict behavior.  Likewise, you can expose thoughts.  There's a widespread (and totally, 100% false) meme out there that meta-data is somehow less revealing.  It is often *far more revealing* than the content.  Especially in aggregate.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2017)

If you're an American you exist because a group of people were tired of gov't interference in their lives, including search and seizure among other things. With that said, I consider data leaving your computer/ personal devices to be fair game. I vehemently oppose going after our personal electronics for any reason unless you have a warrant.

I find the concept of "I'm doing nothing wrong, so search away" is laughable and incredibly naïve. I'm all for increased security, but fundamentally altering the fabric of our country concerns me to no end.

ETA: forgot an entire phrase


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 8, 2017)

If you have nothing to fear, then correspond with all financial entities via postcard.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 8, 2017)

I've always considered what you post on the open net, to be free content to whoever.  But closed forums, private email, etc, should remain private. I absolutely hate the shit they can do with phones these days. I often thought about doing away with it,  not because I have anything to hide, but because it's disturbing that they can watch, listen at anytime anywhere. 

I think it's great for tracking terrorist, shocking, if not scary they can do it to anyone they think may be committing a crime. Mostly shocking, that as fucked up as our government has become, you may become the target if you disagree with it. 

I'm not a fan.


----------



## Dame (Mar 8, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> The problem is that these leaks keep happening.  Sounds like deeper background checks are needed for clearances and all current employees need a fresh poly.


Shuu uuu  uuu uuut  UP.
OMG, I am going to hurt you and not the way you like it.
Every time one of these leaky assholes opens their cock holster the rest of us get screwed. And not the way we like it.
The wait time for clearances is insane because these guys have just given the federal security bozos a hard-on for polys (which don't work) and mile-high, bee-bee sized, procedural hoops. 
At some point they are going to shut down the security department itself because no one can actually follow policy and still get the job done.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 8, 2017)

We don't get dick without legal process.....Now if the target is overseas and not a USPERS, fair game for the USIC.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 9, 2017)

These recent posts call to mind an article I encountered the other day on Robert David Steele.  I hadn't heard of him before or his Open Everything efforts.  Sounds interesting in the article, but his website looks a little... shall we say Alex Jones-ish.

Any insight into this guy and his Open Everything philosophy?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 16, 2017)

Ummm...holy shit.

Edina police ask for whole city's Google searches, and a judge says yes | City Pages

Time to go back and read more thoroughly the links that @Board and Seize post on page one.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 16, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm...holy shit.
> 
> Edina police ask for whole city's Google searches, and a judge says yes | City Pages
> 
> Time to go back and read more thoroughly the links that @Board and Seize post on page one.


WTFO?!

This statement from the article captures it all:


			
				City Pages said:
			
		

> In the case of "Douglas (something or other)," Edina police are raiding people's Google history to catch a man who _tried and failed to commit $28,500 worth of bank fraud_.
> 
> Do not mess with Edina's banks.


The precedent it sets is terrible.  Can only hope that Google fights it; sends it to a higher court.

I'd add some belt fed hate to that post but it doesn't seem right to shoot the messenger.


----------



## CDG (Mar 16, 2017)

That's a very misleading article title.  They are not asking for a blanket search history.  They are asking for a search of a specific term, between specific dates.  I can see where this could turn into a slippery slope, but I personally don't have a problem with that warrant.  It's like an Internet version of an APB for a specific car.  If you're driving that make/model/color, you're probably going to get stopped and questioned to see if you are who they are after.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 16, 2017)

I would have to read the actual SW, but I agree with CDG, it's probably a lot more specific than the article is saying.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 16, 2017)

Which is fucking useless as VPN's are so prevalent these days, that there's no way to honestly prove the origination of any data without tertiary logins and a whole paper trail ensuing.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2017)

CDG said:


> That's a very misleading article title.  They are not asking for a blanket search history.  They are asking for a search of a specific term, between specific dates.  I can see where this could turn into a slippery slope, but I personally don't have a problem with that warrant. * It's like an Internet version of an APB for a specific car. * If you're driving that make/model/color, you're probably going to get stopped and questioned to see if you are who they are after.



I'm having a difficult time agreeing with your thought process, especially the bolded.  I think it is very different then being pulled over because I was driving a newer model black 4-Runner, similar to whomever "they" are looking for is driving.  Say for example I am writing a book about a kinky sex murder and the scenarios I have been extensively researching on Google (and watching videos of) are strikingly similar to something that happens locally.   Local PD get a warrant with specifics about the murder and my name pops up? 

- Now I have to explain to them that I'm just writing a book and that it is a coincidence that my book is very similar to what just happened for real ?

- Now I am forced to come up with some type of alibi the time of the murder ?  What if I don't have one, now I am a suspect???

- At a minimum I am going to feel the need to hire an attorney. 

Seeking the browsing history for a specific person is one thing, but reversing that and doing a broad search of specific terms in the hopes of finding a suspect?  That is something else all together.

I've been reading the links @Board and Seize posted on page one of this thread and am slowing changing my thinking on the whole privacy issue.


Police got search warrant for everyone who Googled Edina resident's name

_According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder.

Larson signed off on the search warrant on Feb. 1. According to court documents, Lindman served it about 20 minutes later.

McGeveran said it’s unusual for a judge to sign off on a warrant that bases probable cause on such few facts.

“It’s much more usual for a search warrant to be used to gather evidence for a suspect that’s already identified, instead of using evidence to find a suspect,” he said. “If the standards for getting a broad warrant like this are not strong, you can have a lot of police fishing expeditions.”_


----------



## CDG (Mar 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I'm having a difficult time agreeing with your thought process, especially the bolded.  I think it is very different then being pulled over because I was driving a newer model black 4-Runner, similar to whomever "they" are looking for is driving.  Say for example I am writing a book about a kinky sex murder and the scenarios I have been extensively researching on Google (and watching videos of) are strikingly similar to something that happens locally.   Local PD get a warrant with specifics about the murder and my name pops up?
> 
> - Now I have to explain to them that I'm just writing a book and that it is a coincidence that my book is very similar to what just happened for real ?
> 
> ...



How is it not the same?  They don't have a specific suspect, they have a suspect vehicle.  Here, they have a suspect search term. 

In your scenario, yeah, why shouldn't you be questioned?  That's not enough PC to warrant some follow up questioning?  I think so.  If it's searching for a specific term, then it's not a broad search, is it?  If they already knew who this guy was, they wouldn't need to try and figure out this piece of puzzle.  Cops have a difficult enough job as it is. Now they gotta get raked over the coals because people want to pretend their Google search history is sacrosanct?  Come on man.  You know how many companies/people have access to that shit anyways? It's hardly private information.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2017)

CDG said:


> You know how many companies/people have access to that shit anyways? It's hardly private information.



 That may be the case, but I do not knowingly consent to it. In addition, it is one thing for companies to have access to my search history, it is another thing altogether for the police to find my name during a broad Internet search and suddenly make me a suspect in a crime where I need to hire a lawyer. 

 To add, I am not "raking the cops over the coals" in fact I am about as "pro-cop" as anybody I know,  but just because the technology is available, does not mean it should be used  for fishing expeditions.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 17, 2017)

CDG said:


> How is it not the same?  They don't have a specific suspect, they have a suspect vehicle.  Here, they have a suspect search term.
> 
> In your scenario, yeah, why shouldn't you be questioned?  That's not enough PC to warrant some follow up questioning?  I think so.  If it's searching for a specific term, then it's not a broad search, is it?  If they already knew who this guy was, they wouldn't need to try and figure out this piece of puzzle.  Cops have a difficult enough job as it is. Now they gotta get raked over the coals because people want to pretend their Google search history is sacrosanct?  Come on man.  You know how many companies/people have access to that shit anyways? It's hardly private information.


I was going to write something along the same lines as @Ooh-Rah but got side tracked. An APB, or BOLO is used for officers to disseminate information quickly. It is not PC for officers to conduct a traffic stop in most cases. Depending on the specificity of the BOLO, it may or may not provide enough information to allow officers to pull over a vehicle. Example, a violent felony has occurred recently and a vehicle and suspect description has been given in addition to a license plate number. Given the recent nature of the crime, and the specific suspect and vehicle information, LE would be justified in conducting a traffic stop on a vehicle with a driver matching the given description and given plate number. On the other hand, if a considerable amount of time has passed, and the description is vague (ie general description of a vehicle and suspect), then officers would need solid PC (a traffic violation) to pull the vehicle over and investigate.

According to the Google article, the local agency is searching for a broad search term versus a specific term. The name "Douglas" is not specific enough under any reasonable definition. Furthermore, LE didn't just stop at the content of the term, but wanted to 





> "include, but [are] not limited to: name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), dates of birth, social security numbers, email addresses, payment information, account information, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the person(s) who requested/completed the search."


According to the information provided, this information goes well beyond the scope of a warrant looking for something specific. If the term had been more defined, like "Douglas/fund/transfer" or something to that effect, and the above information only provided to those hits meeting a more narrowly defined criteria, then I would have no problem with further release of the specific user information. The problem is that the scope is so broad that it grants too much flexibility and access to the local agency. As it stands now, anyone searching on any name with Douglas in it (Douglas MacArthur, Michael Douglas, Douglas Adams, Kirk Douglas, Fredrick Douglas, ect...) are suspect in a wire fraud case. See where I am going? Anyone searching for actors, to historic figures would be a suspect in a felony investigation. The search term is entirely too broad. It would be akin to a judge granting a search warrant for "contraband" instead of something specific like, guns, narcotics, or something similar. Allowing this search to go forward sets a dangerous legal precedent that could later be used to go after "subversive thinking".

Oh, and while I agree peoples search history is not necessarily sacrosanct, searching for information is also not prima fascia evidence that a crime has occurred either. Companies had access to the information only because a user has visited that company's website and exchanged that information for whatever info is on the company site. I am not suggestion that the government not have access to that information, but they should be required to show due cause for the acquisition of that info.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2017)

Kinda sorta off-topic, but somewhat relevant -

If a person is pulled over because their vehicle fits a specific description, does that give probable cause so that they can they be arrested/charged for something else?  ie:  DWI, expired license, etc.  

Same question then for internet searches.  If the police don't find what they are looking for in their search, but they do see evidence of a different crime, can that info be used?   

On that same line, is "incognito mode" on the iPhone really private, or does it simply not to tie your searches to your search history?


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Kinda sorta off-topic, but somewhat relevant -
> 
> If a person is pulled over because their vehicle fits a specific description, does that give probable cause so that they can they be arrested/charged for something else?  ie:  DWI, expired license, etc.
> 
> ...


For the first part, (and forgive me in advance cause the wording can be tricky) if they are pulled over because they match a BOLO (assuming the officer had PC to pull them over), but evidence of another crime is in plain view (drugs or guns in the seat or out in the open) then the officer can make an arrest based on the Plain View Doctrine. Using your example, the officer would have to use the DWI as the pretext for the stop, in which case he would be justified in pursing the DWI while confirming the BOLO. However, lets simplify your example. Lets say the vehicle is pulled over for a broken tag/tail light. While making contact with the driver they discover that the subject is not part of the active BOLO. The tag light in and of itself does not give the officer the authority to search the vehicle. If other evidence of a crime is observed in plain view (bloody instrument, guns, drugs, ect...) the the officer would have PC to search the vehicle. In essence, each crime must follow its own legal path before an arrest can be made. However, PC can grant permission, in limited circumstances, that allow other crimes to be investigated in parallel. For example, the broken tag/tail light would not grant PC for a search, but allows to become the pretext for a stop. Once the stop is made, and evidence of a crime is otherwise discovered legally, then those crimes can be pursued through other means. The delicate nature of our laws and procedures is why an entire case can hinge on a single, simple violation like a tag light. If the pretext for the stop is invalidated, then anythign discovered afterwards can be thrown out. 

 I hope that makes sense and I didn't confuse the question. It can sometimes confuse even the most seasoned LEOs (of which I am most certainly not). If others more seasoned than myself care to chime in and correct me then feel free to. 

As to the second part, generally speaking, the same should apply to internet searches unless and until a court makes a ruling on that specific topic.


----------



## CDG (Mar 17, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That may be the case, but I do not knowingly consent to it. In addition, it is one thing for companies to have access to my search history, it is another thing altogether for the police to find my name during a broad Internet search and suddenly make me a suspect in a crime where I need to hire a lawyer.
> 
> To add, I am not "raking the cops over the coals" in fact I am about as "pro-cop" as anybody I know,  but just because the technology is available, does not mean it should be used  for fishing expeditions.



No one knowingly consents to a search warrant either.  That's why we have judges to provide the check and balance of whether or not the police request is valid enough to issue a warrant.  

To clarify, I am not singling you out as raking cops over the coals.  Apologies if it came off that way.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 17, 2017)

CDG said:


> To clarify, I am not singling you out as raking cops over the coals. Apologies if it came off that way.



It didn't.  In fact I need to take a step back from this whole topic and regroup...up until about a week ago I was of the mindset, "I don't care what they see, I didn't do anything wrong.".  My thoughts on the subject are all over the place now.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 18, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> In fact I need to take a step back from this whole topic and regroup...up until about a week ago I was of the mindset, "I don't care what they see, I didn't do anything wrong.".  My thoughts on the subject are all over the place now.



Cognitive dissonance man.  We've been indoctrinated (and I mean that purely descriptively, not pejoratively) into the orthodoxy (from the Greek, parses literally as proper thought - kind of makes you think of political correctness, as in toeing the literal party line, and New Speak) of modern, western society.  This entails a whole range of doctrines, for example:

more education is the solution to ______ (everything?)

public education serves _us_, the citizenry
government is inherently benign, and shares interest with the citizenry
_our_ systems aren't corrupt (maybe those 'unenlightened' people wherever else are... see point about education above)

_our _politicians wouldn't straight-up lie to us about major issues
_our_ government wouldn't abuse our good faith with the powers we've granted it (or it has seized, or magicked out of thin air)
and so on
Now, I'm painting an extreme picture, but I think it demonstrates my point.  Some deeply foundational (to your worldview / identity) belief(s) has just been shown false.  You are in the process of reducing the dissonance now, and it sounds like you are doing it by changing that belief(s).

I've been through this process a couple of times myself - anyone committed to rationality must.  We all have stuff buried deep down that is just, plain wrong.

Time for a digression into personal anecdote:
Back when I was instructing CQB, my school house was in the process of updating our TTPs which were basically unchanged from the late 80's.  Remember hanging an ammo can around your neck and holding a canteen between your knees while you 'combat glide'?  Yeah.  Body mechanics, ergonomics, what?

Anyways, I had found and hired Mike Pannone, and planned a 1 week instructor sustainment training with him.  I was so pleased with myself from being 'out of the box', finding Mike, and was excited for him to come out and confirm how awesome I was.

So he comes out, and we hang out and talk that first night.  Wow.  If you've never had the opportunity to train with Mike, you're missing out.  His 'specialty' (my designation/description) is a radical pursuit of perfection/optimization.  He critically assesses his performance in some task, and asks if he is doing it the best way possible.  If not, why not, and how can he improve.  This might not sound that radical, but the level Mike takes this process to is rare.

Finally, full of myself and ready for some cred/cool by association, we head out to the range.  Incidentally it is my birthday.  Over the next 8 hours or so, Mike exposed bad habit after bad habit.  He exposed unconsidered dogmas that had been pounded into me since boot camp - I thought I had found and eradicated all of those.  (Things like the commonly taught, and completely wrong/mis-characterized notion of fine and gross motor movement - "Don't use your thumb to release the bolt!  That's fine motor movement!"  Apparently, in a firefight, your thumb stops working so you should use your palm instead, never mind the convenient depression in the middle of your palm that will cause you to fail.  Never mind that the location of the bolt release was intentionally located so that you could sweep your thumb whilst holding the mag well.)

Long story short, I suffered some fair amount of cognitive dissonance that day - I felt like crying.  But in the end, I became a far better shooter and instructor as a result.

Return from digression:
@Ooh-Rah, I'd challenge you to take advantage of this opportunity.  There aren't too many occasions in most of our lives when the socially constructed fabric of the world we live in seems to unravel.  These are opportunities to peer behind the curtain, as it were, into yourself - what you believe and why.

Take this as a change to update and upgrade your Web of Belief (fascinating paper if you're into epistemology, but Section I, The Metaphor on pdf page 2 is all you need here - ~5 min read).

Interrogate your beliefs - especially the ones that normally you don't even notice. 

Good luck to you, oh intrepid psychonaut! (not referencing drugs and altered mental states, but etymology - 'mental explorer' or 'navigator of the soul')


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 23, 2017)

*UPDATE:
*
Wikileaks has released the next installment in the Vault 7 documents: Dark Matter.

Trigger Warning:  Apple users' sense of invulnerability to hacking is about to melt down... Oh, what a world, what a world!


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 23, 2017)

Some big stuff in the latest release.

The Most Damaging Wikileak Just Released Today


----------



## AWP (Mar 23, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> Trigger Warning:  Apple users' sense of invulnerability to hacking is about to melt down... Oh, what a world, what a world!



Which I have "soapboxed" for years now causing the fanbois to lose their minds and provide the only rebuttal they know: bag on Microsoft. We aren't talking about MS, we're talking about how Apple isn't the magic bullet everyone states. MS v. Apple is like Obama v. Trump in the emotional content department.


----------



## Board and Seize (Mar 23, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Some big stuff in the latest release.
> 
> The Most Damaging Wikileak Just Released Today



Wow.  First time I've been Wik Rolled.  Text rolled?



AWP said:


> MS v. Apple is like Obama v. Trump



It's the old false dichotomy.  From the wikipedia page on Neal Stephenson's _In the Beginning... Was the Command Line_:


> He compares four operating systems, Mac OS by Apple Computer to a luxury European car, Windows by Microsoft to a station wagon, Linux to a free tank, and BeOS to a batmobile. Stephenson argues that people continue to buy the station wagon despite free tanks being given away, because people do not want to learn how to operate a tank; they know that the station wagon dealership has a machine shop that they can take their car to when it breaks down... He compares Microsoft to Disney, in that both are selling a vision to their customers, who in turn "want to believe" in that vision.


----------



## AWP (Mar 23, 2017)

Board and Seize said:


> From the wikipedia page on Neal Stephenson's _In the Beginning... Was the Command Line_:



Which nicely sums up the bias. Not to hijack, but both are good products with pros and cons. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't that smart.


----------

