[Jack Donovan1]

Organized crime sting, Operation J-Tornado, lands first conviction
CBC
10 hours ago
Police and prosecutors have obtained their first conviction as a result of Operation J-Tornado, a large drug operation targeting organized crime,�which saw 29 people arrested�in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec.

Clifford Hughes,�34, pleaded guilty in Saint John�provincial court on Friday�to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of an undertaking.

He was sentenced to three years in prison, based on a joint recommendation by the Crown and defence.

Delta� Faucet - Touch2O Technology
Delta� Faucet Canada Sponsored
?
Hughes was in possession of a Blackberry used to send encrypted messages between himself and another man, the courtroom heard.

Police could not crack the messages, but using an informant were able to put a bugged phone in the mix and figured out what happened.

In total, Hughes moved four ounces of cocaine and 16 pounds�of marijuana, said Crown prosecutor Nicole Poirier.

Posted via CB10

[Troy Tiscareno]

Police could not crack the messages, but using an informant were able to put a bugged phone in the mix and figured out what happened.

And that is the kind of "police work" I was referring to: the classic techniques police have been using for years/decades.

Is what Apple/Google is doing to encrypt devices enough to keep NSA out? None of us can say for sure, but you can bet that that's the goal they are trying to achieve. Is it enough to virtually guarantee that lesser agencies (FBI, CIA, TSA, ATF, etc.) can't decrypt your device? Almost certainly.

And while I'm the last person to defend the government's breeches of domestic systems like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc., the fact still is that when NSA was doing that, they were primarily targeting foreign terrorists, and the occasional domestic terrorists. I doubt they care too much about the receipts from the DJ gear I buy or my discussions about smartphones, even if they can read them. The fact that they could have made a copy of my entire mailbox makes me angry, but there's also nothing in it that's of any interest to them, and even with the money they have, they don't have nearly enough staff to read my (or your) stuff "just because". They simply index everything they have and then, when they need to investigate a terrorist act or something, they do searches and try to link people together. None of that will affect you or me.

[MmmHmm]

And that is the kind of "police work" I was referring to: the classic techniques police have been using for years/decades.

Is what Apple/Google is doing to encrypt devices enough to keep NSA out? None of us can say for sure, but you can bet that that's the goal they are trying to achieve. Is it enough to virtually guarantee that lesser agencies (FBI, CIA, TSA, ATF, etc.) can't decrypt your device? Almost certainly.

And while I'm the last person to defend the government's breeches of domestic systems like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc., the fact still is that when NSA was doing that, they were primarily targeting foreign terrorists, and the occasional domestic terrorists. I doubt they care too much about the receipts from the DJ gear I buy or my discussions about smartphones, even if they can read them. The fact that they could have made a copy of my entire mailbox makes me angry, but there's also nothing in it that's of any interest to them, and even with the money they have, they don't have nearly enough staff to read my (or your) stuff "just because". They simply index everything they have and then, when they need to investigate a terrorist act or something, they do searches and try to link people together. None of that will affect you or me.

What about all the naked pictures the NSA admits they looked at when randomly intercepting Yahoo messages? Everyone does things in private that they expect to remain private. If the government only intercepted or looked at things pursuant to court issued warrants with probable cause, that would be different. However, they have proven again and again that they can't be trusted to only act on warrants. NSA and probably FBI agents sometimes look at your private messages without your knowledge and without warrants. They have done this. It's known. They don't simply index things for searching pursuant to warrants. It's unacceptable. If our legislators and other leaders won't put an end to this nonsense, then companies like Apple and BlackBerry should make it technically difficult for them to do it. Let the FBI whine about it all they want.

http://lifehacker.com/why-your-priva...nyt-1645884650

[Troy Tiscareno]

What about all the naked pictures the NSA admits they looked at when randomly intercepting Yahoo messages?

Again, I'm not trying to justify the NSA's actions here. They went WAY over the line, and that's why the encryption gate is slamming down to lock them out, at least as far as pulling data off of (iOS 8 and Android 5+) devices.

Has there been some outright abuse - NSA simply looking at nudes because they can? I'm certain that has happened, and it's not right. But the vast majority of the time, that's not what they're doing.

I think it's important to be upset about what actually happened that was wrong, without letting yourself fall for some of the over-the-top conspiracy theories that a few folks like to spread around. When you do that, it just makes you look weak-minded, and we're better than that here (I hope).

[Smitty13]

But the vast majority of the time, that's not what they're doing.

How are you sure of what activities they engage in most of the time? Are you privy to NSA activities the rest of us aren't?

While I am sure viewing nude pictures is not at the top of their list, how are you sure other nefarious activities do not comprise a rather significant amount of their time?

When it has been revealed that a rather significant portion of their time was used to engage in spying on behalf of business interests (Brazilian oil interests, etc.), it would not be a stretch to believe that they are engaged in other less-than-honourable activities.

I highly recommend you watch the PBS documentary "United States of Secrets" where, self admittedly, a program that was once developed to actually monitor terrorist activities became perverted into something totally opposite of that. Heck, a portion of the initial coding in the data dragnet program that was made to ignore data collected on American citizens was purposely removed. Now, why would that be?

Part 1:
Part 2:



It absolutely frustrates me and scares me that a government surveillance state, no matter how glacial of a pace it moves toward our personal lives, is becoming an accepted norm by the general populous.


BB-Z10/STL 100-3 Black/RFF91LW/Software Release 10.2.1.2977/OS 10.2.1.3247 /SanDisk Ultra 64 GB MicroSDXC Class 10/Unlocked

[Troy Tiscareno]

Again, I agree with you that there is and has been abuse. Your example is a legit issue, no question.

I'm talking about the folks who say "Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc. are in cahoots with the government to give them all of your data, and have secret meetings where they do this, etc." Clearly that is not the case. When the government gets into those systems, it is in spite of those companies' efforts to keep them out.

Of course, those companies all have to comply with legal requests for data, but that's not at all the same thing as installing a dedicated OC48 line to the FBI so they can hoover up everything that they want, or whatever people imagine is happening.

[Smitty13]

Again, I agree with you that there is and has been abuse. Your example is a legit issue, no question.

I'm talking about the folks who say "Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc. are in cahoots with the government to give them all of your data, and have secret meetings where they do this, etc." Clearly that is not the case. When the government gets into those systems, it is in spite of those companies' efforts to keep them out.

Of course, those companies all have to comply with legal requests for data, but that's not at all the same thing as installing a dedicated OC48 line to the FBI so they can hoover up everything that they want, or whatever people imagine is happening.

The problem is with your stance is, is that it has been proven to varying degrees a very wide majority of these companies have been willing partners to the alphabet agencies, or in some cases, unwilling partners who cannot speak up due to a National Security Letter forbidding them from speaking out.

Leak after leak that is presented to us courtesy of that one specific contractor has shown that many of these companies as well as cellular providers (e.g. AT&T) have provided the NSA carte blanche access to their data.

I needn't point any further than the example of Skype. Pre-Microsoft acquisition, Skype was a security beast which boasted a decentralized, encrypted P2P network, making decryption and overall detection very difficult. Upon the Skype acquisition by Microsoft, all of Skype's under the hood components changed to make all traffic flow through centralized Microsoft servers. Coincidentally, internal slides leaked (in the link above) also show that nearly the exact same date of that acquisition became the data that the NSA magically had access to Skype call and message data.

I honestly wonder sometimes if pointing out this factual evidence is even worth my time, as some people truly do believe that this is all just some elaborate tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

Edit: Spelling

[boi2012]

The problem is with your stance is, is that it has been proven to varying degrees a very wide majority of these companies have been willing partners to the alphabet agencies, or in some cases, unwilling partners who cannot speak up due to a National Security Letter forbidding them from speaking out.

Leak after leak that is presented to us courtesy of that one specific contractor has shown that many of these companies as well as cellular providers (e.g. AT&T) have provided the NSA carte blanche access to their data.

I needn't point any further than the example of Skype. Pre-Microsoft acquisition, Skype was a security beast which boasted a decentralized, encrypted P2P network, making decryption and overall detection very difficult. Upon the Skype acquisition by Microsoft, all of Skype's under the hood components changed to make all traffic flow through centralized Microsoft servers. Coincidentally, internal slides leaked (in the link above) also show that nearly the exact same date of that acquisition became the data that the NSA magically had access to Skype call and message data.

I honestly wonder sometimes if pointing out this factual evidence is even worth my time, as some people truly do believe that this is all just some elaborate tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

Edit: Spelling

Yeah, I've always liked and respected Troy's posts in the forum (and still do) and was open to debating the facts, as you did very well. But, when he said that people were "weak minded," for thinking for themselves about the facts versus just believing that the government is mostly honorable, minus a few incidents, though there were MANY incidence of illegal and corrupt activities, then I knew debating this topic any farther would have been futile.

[TGR1]

Where the argument is weak is that I fail to see proof of these companies being "willing" participants in the past. Participating? Absolutely, because they had no other legal recourse. But willing? Color me skeptical because otherwise it's a mighty coincidental timing that both Apple and Google somehow lost the keys to their houses at pretty well their next really major upgrade.

And IMO there is plenty of tinfoil hat conspiracy nut ranting going around. GOVERNMENT is spoken of as this thing but it is made up of an awful lot of generally normal people, as flawed as you and I, and some in positions of power will abuse it. As a matter of principle it is right and good that you and I oppose unwarranted snooping, but note that just where along that slippery slope the definition of "unwarranted" is, is a personal choice.

[MADBRADNYC]

Yeah. Some will be used unwittingly with the "I'm not doing anything wrong" argument to disparage those like minded individuals like myself. Then after that, it will become so obvious that even those individuals wake up. But it will be too late for them as no one will be left/there to assist at that point. We are now told to be politically correct, and understand that we don't know how to govern our own lives. We ALL need to be compliant with this new globalist social welfare. Of course, to keep us safe.....

So while everyone watches football today, someone else is drafting some more legislation about what we are "allowed" to do in our own country.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

Where the argument is weak is that I fail to see proof of these companies being "willing" participants in the past. Participating? Absolutely, because they had no other legal recourse. But willing? Color me skeptical because otherwise it's a mighty coincidental timing that both Apple and Google somehow lost the keys to their houses at pretty well their next really major upgrade.

And IMO there is plenty of tinfoil hat conspiracy nut ranting going around. GOVERNMENT is spoken of as this thing but it is made up of an awful lot of generally normal people, as flawed as you and I, and some in positions of power will abuse it. As a matter of principle it is right and good that you and I oppose unwarranted snooping, but note that just where along that slippery slope the definition of "unwarranted" is, is a personal choice.

I understand your position and think you have touched upon a critical issue (Re: company willingness). In some instances we may never know the level of outright cooperation versus coerced legal wrangling.

In some instances however, this is not at all hard to gauge given the facts. Let's take AT&T for example. (Summary found here: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/A...ll-Data-126555)

Not only have they complied with the demands of the alphabet agencies in terms of cloning fibre lines at network heads to allow for on demand data snooping, but even had their legal department assist the CIA by providing them with information on how best to skirt the law and what loopholes to look for. To top it off, they are provided $10 million per year for their services.

Does this sound like a company that was dragged kicking and screaming, or a company that saw a way to increase revenue and grab those lucrative government cellular contracts? If they were coerced or forced, why would they be receiving any money?

I think the answer is very clear here. People can surely point to grey area where the answer may not be so clear, but they cannot paint all instances with the same brush when they are so blatantly different.

Edit: Spelling

BB-Z10/STL 100-3 Black/RFF91LW/Software Release 10.2.1.2977/OS 10.2.1.3247 /SanDisk Ultra 64 GB MicroSDXC Class 10/Unlocked

[Troy Tiscareno]

We've known that the phone carriers have been compromised since forever. They can be powerfully coerced due to various laws and the fact that they rely on the government for access to the airwaves.

But that's not nearly the same as saying that the major tech companies are willfully assisting the government - the fact that Microsoft integrated a major product that they bought with their own servers and systems is hardly proof of that; it's what any company would do in their situation. I don't believe any broad-based, willful conspiracies exist, and that's the "tinfoil had" stuff I'm talking about, stuff like: "Apple, Google, and Microsoft are all in bed with the government and so they have all your data!" I hear stuff like that a lot, and it simply isn't true.

Again, no one is saying that very real lines aren't being crossed, and that mistakes have been heavily exploited, but that's not at all the same thing. We should be angry and wary about what the government has done, and what they have done is plenty bad enough without embellishing it further.

[Smitty13]

We've known that the phone carriers have been compromised since forever.

Really? Can you show me a source that the general public has known "forever" that phone carriers have been wholesaling customer data? I only became aware of this since the leaks began.

Similarly, you have forgotten one major point of what I referenced earlier, while AT&T is a major cellular carrier, they are also an internet provider, hence my reference to fibre line cloning. What more do you possibly want to display the complete and utter compliance of AT&T with the alphabet agencies? A signed Memo of Understanding by the CEO with the subject line, "I Agree to Wholesale Customer Data"? You are truly grasping at straws in this argument.

I don't believe any broad-based, willful conspiracies exist

The problem is, these aren't conspiracy. These instances have been proven time and time again from leaked internal data from the NSA and the like. Merely because you choose not to accept the validity of these documents does not mean they are not valid.

A conspiracy theory would be along the lines of people perpetuating the idea that the Queen of England is in fact an alien sent to destroy Earth. Highly ludicrous. The idea that mass government surveillance has now percolated into many US tech firms with approval in exchange for monetary gain is not a conspiracy theory as leaks have been given to show this true.

Instances of mass data collection by the US government is well documented and supported by numerous data sources. Heck, do you think they built that massive Utah data center just to merely spy upon a select few individuals?

the fact that Microsoft integrated a major product that they bought with their own servers and systems is hardly proof of that; it's what any company would do in their situation.

You are being willfully ignorant to facts that are more than mere coincidences. Sure, one could argue that the date of the NSA's ability to tap into Skype was pure coincidence to align with the time that Microsoft bought out Skype, but any reasonable person that is knowledgeable of government surveillance as a whole knows this is no coincidence given the infrastructure of Skype pre-Microsoft.

In addition to that, you are showing your ignorance of how data works. If you were a company, would you wish to use a data transfer protocol that essentially is of little cost to you? Or would you choose to set up expensive equipment to make no noticeable gains in the end user experience? This is exactly what Microsoft did by setting up their "supernodes" to route all traffic through their servers. Would you invest great deals of man power and financial resources to retool a program that, for all intents and purposes, was working smoothly to begin with? Spare me the rhetoric on how this helped maintain an index of peers and handles NAT/firewall traversal for peers. This has been investigated and debunked to death.

I highly suggest you go back and watch the documentary I referenced you to...ah, who am I kidding? Of course you're going to reply and say you watched it and still hold the same position. I have come to learn that debating people who are willfully blind to the facts will inevitably lead you to nowhere.