[conite]

Does this mean the keyone is safe or not safe?

Having a device that receives monthly security updates, that has some protections against allowing root access, and that constantly monitors the system files for compromise sure doesn't hurt.

But nothing is perfectly safe though. Nothing.

[bobshine]

There are unlimited ways to attack a phone in order to fin a flaw. You can have the most secure OS but if you download an app that has some flawed codes into it... then you're in trouble.

Obviously BB10 and BBOS don't have much market share anymore so they tend to stay under the radar. But historically BBOS has been hacked many many times and I am not sure if BB ever patched those exploits. If you check firms like Cellebrite, they still list BBOS and BB10 as "hackable"

[fatclue_98]

You might feel differently if the lives of your family were saved as a result of NSA monitoring.

There is a balance somewhere. Privacy and freedom has a complex relationship with safety and security.

Without privacy and freedom, there can be no security. Living in fear of the next bogeyman is not living free. Believing the government will keep you safe but only if they know your every move, the names and addresses of all your friends and family, where you shop, go to worship and who you vote for is an invitation to the worst form of oppression.

Paranoia is an oppressive regime's best friend. I'm Cuban, trust me on this.

[deadcowboy]

Without privacy and freedom, there can be no security. Living in fear of the next bogeyman is not living free. Believing the government will keep you safe but only if they know your every move, the names and addresses of all your friends and family, where you shop, go to worship and who you vote for is an invitation to the worst form of oppression.

Paranoia is an oppressive regime's best friend. I'm Cuban, trust me on this.

Great post. Absolutely true.

I wish that people could have foresight...I'd tell people: just because you're not noticing the effects of a surveillance society just this moment doesn't mean you won't see them in a few years. What does this path look like a few decades down the road? Those who are apathetic to, or even welcoming of, the current state of no-privacy are spoiled rotten, there's no other way to put it.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Without privacy and freedom, there can be no security. Living in fear of the next bogeyman is not living free. Believing the government will keep you safe but only if they know your every move, the names and addresses of all your friends and family, where you shop, go to worship and who you vote for is an invitation to the worst form of oppression.

Paranoia is an oppressive regime's best friend. I'm Cuban, trust me on this.

Surely there is a happy medium between total anarchy and a police state. I'm subject to the law already - it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.

[fatclue_98]

Surely there is a happy medium between total anarchy and a police state. I'm subject to the law already - it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.

No one is suggesting total anarchy. That runs completely counter to what a free society is. Law and order is essential to any society for without law, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no freedom.

Justice is rooted in the fundamental right of all citizens to be secure in their persons and their homes. The Patriot Act by extension, precludes that for the citizenry to be secure, their personal liberties must be called into question and the final arbiter is the State. That's not a slippery slope, that's a greased raceway.

Sent from Alcatel Idol 4S with Windows via mTalk

[conite]

No one is suggesting total anarchy. That runs completely counter to what a free society is. Law and order is essential to any society for without law, there is no justice. Without justice, there is no freedom.

Justice is rooted in the fundamental right of all citizens to be secure in their persons and their homes. The Patriot Act by extension, precludes that for the citizenry to be secure, their personal liberties must be called into question and the final arbiter is the State. That's not a slippery slope, that's a greased raceway.

Sent from Alcatel Idol 4S with Windows via mTalk

I agree.

But the world is changing, and criminals, terrorists, and other foreign powers have receded into the shadows and are fighting it out in the deep recesses of cyberspace. Law enforcement have to keep up. At the end of the day, we still get our day in court where we are presumed innocent.

[anon(6038817)]

I agree.

But the world is changing, and criminals, terrorists, and other foreign powers have receded into the shadows and are fighting it out in the deep recesses of cyberspace. Law enforcement have to keep up. At the end of the day, we still get our day in court where we are presumed innocent.

But do you have to destroy paradise to save it?

Posted from my  BlackBerry Passport via CB10

[conite]

But do you have to destroy paradise to save it?

Posted from my  BlackBerry Passport via CB10

I'm sure the same thing was said when drinking, gambling, property rights restrictions, and many other things were suddenly put under scrutiny.

I'm not suggesting I know the correct balance and where the line should be drawn.

[ryder55]

I agree.

But the world is changing, and criminals, terrorists, and other foreign powers have receded into the shadows and are fighting it out in the deep recesses of cyberspace. Law enforcement have to keep up. At the end of the day, we still get our day in court where we are presumed innocent.

Believing that the fabric of the world is going to remain the same is ignoring years of history. You have to look back to look forward so you don't make the same mistake of the past. Absolute power corrupts, and the granting of any organization, whether Google or the government, to have unfettered access into your life and livelihood is a gargantuan mistake of epic proportions. Even though it might not affect you now, you should protect the next gen. All it takes is for someone to usurp or through guile point fingers to another group or identity as the enemy and there is chaos. This is very easy to do, as now the target is immigrants and minorities, but this target is always changing. I will rather save the millions of lives the surveillance state will claim in the future by refuting and resisting their power now, than live in a false sense of security by trading in my privacy. This should be common sense.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

This should be common sense.

Posted via CB10

Enough with the hyperbole, as you're insinuating that anyone that doesn't share your view lacks common sense.

I don't think anyone is advocating completely unfettered access to every aspect of everyone's lives.

Privacy and security have been a balancing act since the beginning of communities and societies. It will continue to be a balancing act well into the future, even as technologies change.

[gizmo21]

I agree.

But the world is changing, and criminals, terrorists, and other foreign powers have receded into the shadows and are fighting it out in the deep recesses of cyberspace. Law enforcement have to keep up. At the end of the day, we still get our day in court where we are presumed innocent.

As long as a government doesn't see the joe average or media, or judiciary as their enemy. And sadly this becomes more and more common in (western) democracies nowadays (US, Turkey, Hungary, Russia).

As German I tell you from our dark history fight it from the beginning, you can't even imagine what it means if your own government steps up against you just because you have a different opinion (and knows it).

One step is to secure your data as good as you can, cause in former times you needed spys and paperwork, today the large databases can reveal everything at a click.

[conite]

As long as a government doesn't see the joe average or media, or judiciary as their enemy. And sadly this becomes more and more common in (western) democracies nowadays (US, Turkey, Hungary, Russia).

As German I tell you from our dark history fight it from the beginning, you can't even imagine what it means if your own government steps up against you just because you have a different opinion (and knows it).

One step is to secure your data as good as you can, cause in former times you needed spys and paperwork, today the large databases can reveal everything at a click.

A functioning, democratic society should always have a strong, healthy debate on where the lines should be drawn.

[ryder55]

Enough with the hyperbole, as you're insinuating that anyone that doesn't share your view lacks common sense.

I don't think anyone is advocating completely unfettered access to every aspect of everyone's lives.

Privacy and security have been a balancing act since the beginning of communities and societies. It will continue to be a balancing act well into the future, even as technologies change.

Actually my insinuation is light. Trading your constitutional or charter rights to be secure in your person and be free from unreasonable searches doesn't just show a lack of common sense but something deeper. Every form of unwarranted and unfettered tapping should be illegal, and to say the NSA or whatever organization in Canada or north America as a whole provides security by breaking the law is.....

Posted via CB10

[deadcowboy]

Surely there is a happy medium between total anarchy and a police state. I'm subject to the law already - it's just a matter of where the line is drawn.

The line is drawn at the 4th amendment. How is this so hard to comprehend? Anarchy will not occur if we protect American citizens against unlawful searches and data collection, illegal wiretaps, et al.

Posted via CB10

[deadcowboy]

Enough with the hyperbole, as you're insinuating that anyone that doesn't share your view lacks common sense.

I don't think anyone is advocating completely unfettered access to every aspect of everyone's lives.

Privacy and security have been a balancing act since the beginning of communities and societies. It will continue to be a balancing act well into the future, even as technologies change.

There is the law. And our government and its intelligence agencies are breaking the law with unbelievable regularity, in secret, and with no oversight.

Posted via CB10

[ryder55]

I'm interested in seeing what the future holds. Manufacturing jobs are being decimated by technology, population is increasing, education is becoming a ponzi scheme, as there are many unemployed graduates, government surveillance is increasing. This is not the leftover from the happy 60s. Will be interesting.

Posted via CB10

[anon(6038817)]

Enough with the hyperbole, as you're insinuating that anyone that doesn't share your view lacks common sense.

I don't think anyone is advocating completely unfettered access to every aspect of everyone's lives.

Privacy and security have been a balancing act since the beginning of communities and societies. It will continue to be a balancing act well into the future, even as technologies change.

Fortunately, the men and women who founded this country were able to communicate in secret, despite the attempts of overbearing government to thwart or spy on them. Such privacy will always be necessary for a free people.

Posted from my  BlackBerry Passport via CB10

[conite]

The line is drawn at the 4th amendment. How is this so hard to comprehend? Anarchy will not occur if we protect American citizens against unlawful searches and data collection, illegal wiretaps, et al.

Posted via CB10

But even cops walking the beat can be argued as unwarranted surveillance. Same thing with security cameras in banks or in public.

Now the "beat" isn't a road, but an information highway.

[deadcowboy]

But even cops walking the beat can be argued as unwarranted surveillance. Same thing with security cameras in banks or in public.

Now the "beat" isn't a road, but an information highway.

There is no reasonable expectation of visual privacy when in public. That's why people can legally record video of other citizens and/or police officers in public.

Your person is protected, your home is protected, your personal effects, your car, etc are protected. But since when has the 4th amendment ever been a legal argument that we're protected from another's gaze while in public?

Now explain your argument, because I'm failing to see how what you've said offers any evidence that the 4th Amendment is so soft, that cops on the beat already infringe upon the 4th Amendment just by walking their beat and observing citizens in public.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

There is no reasonable expectation of visual privacy when in public. That's why people can legally record video of other citizens and/or police officers in public.

Your person is protected, your home is protected, your personal effects, your car, etc are protected. But since when has the 4th amendment ever been a legal argument that we're protected from another's gaze while in public?

Now explain your argument, because I'm failing to see how what you've said offers any evidence that the 4th Amendment is so soft, that cops on the beat already infringe upon the 4th Amendment just by walking their beat and observing citizens in public.

Posted via CB10

An interesting question that has never been legally answered is whether Internet traffic has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

"When a person sends a letter, the contents of the letter are protected by the Fourth Amendment, because the letter is sealed.

When a person sends data on the Internet, would the same argument hold?

Orin Kerr, professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law argues that encryption does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy.

He says:

the Fourth Amendment regulates access, not understanding.

Once you introduce your communication into third party systems (or the garbage), they may give it up to the government. If the government happens to be able to understand that communication, so be it.

He shows how this conclusion is consistent with how the courts have ruled on "reassembly of shredded documents, recovery of deleted files, and the translation of foreign languages".

[deadcowboy]

An interesting question that has never been legally answered is whether Internet traffic has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

"When a person sends a letter, the contents of the letter are protected by the Fourth Amendment, because the letter is sealed.

When a person sends data on the Internet, would the same argument hold?"

Orin Kerr, professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law argues that encryption*does not*create a reasonable expectation of privacy.

He says:

the Fourth Amendment regulates access, not understanding.

Once you introduce your communication into third party systems (or the garbage), they may give it up to the government. If the government happens to be able to understand that communication, so be it.

He shows how this conclusion is consistent with how the courts have ruled on "reassembly of shredded documents, recovery of deleted files, and the translation of foreign languages".

HTTPS is like a sealed letter. I suppose the second party could offer that correspondence to a law enforcement agency, but to pick it up in transit should plainly be covered under fourth amendment, no?

Now what about using a cell phone as a wiretap?
Most of this stuff is black and white illegal without a warrant, but it's happening every day.

What about the encrypted contents of your laptop or cell phone? Those should be covered. It's an interesting line of consideration to try to draw parallels. In most cases, it's not so difficult to extrapolate: is there a reasonable expectation when you're privately corresponding with another person? Absolutely. Do Terms of Service agreements hold up to legal scrutiny? Not often. It's not as if people are arguing that their public Instagram photos are covered by the 4th.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

HTTPS is like a sealed letter. I suppose the second party could offer that correspondence to a law enforcement agency, but to pick it up in transit should plainly be covered under fourth amendment, no?

Now what about using a cell phone as a wiretap?
Most of this stuff is black and white illegal without a warrant, but it's happening every day.

Posted via CB10

The Internet is public domain, so no one has to "give up" the data. And as the law professor indicates, if the government happens to be able to read it, that's fine.

Mobile phone infrastructure is owned by 3rd parties, which requires a warrant to have them provide access.

I do think the NSA went too far in installing software on people's devices without their knowledge. But I suppose that too has to be decided in the courts.

[sorinv]

I was focused on the mobile space but this just shows how much the CIA is the enemy of progress. Cars connected to the Internet should be the future, and nobody should wear a tinfoil hat thinking that the government possesses the power to kill them with their vehicles. With this news though, I just tightened the old tin foil and will stock manual trucks for the future lol jk

Posted via CB10

Cars can be driverless without having to be connected to the internet.
It's such a waste of bandwidth and energy. It's much more energy efficient to avoid a 1Gb/s link to the cloud.
There is enough room and battery in a car to have all its brains and clouds in the car. But the powers at be have no interest in driverless cars that can think for themselves and do not report to the big brother.

Posted via CB10

[byex]

What do I get out of, say, Google services? Quite a lot; off site backup for media and files, easy syncing, an app store that actually has worthwhile offerings, things normal people use.

Normal people need things like that?


Posted via CB10