Operation Weeping Angel: the CIA is watching you through your Samsung TV

Watch
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Got a Samsung TV? The CIA may be watching you.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...g-surveillance

According to the latest mega-release from Wikileaks, the CIA has figured out how to remotely control some smart TVs so that they can monitor the people in the room from the TV. Big Brother comes full circle. :eek4:

Orwell may never have imagined it would be called "Weeping Angel", but that's precisely the sort of phrase he despised being twisted by the authorities. In one of his books, it would perhaps have been Operation Happiness is Truth, or Big Brother Brings you Freedom for Ever or similar.

The image of the boot permanently pressed on our faces is never far away.
2
reply
markova21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I have both a Samsung TV and laptop. They can die of boredom observing me all bloody day long if they want.
12
reply
prazzyjazzy
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
So the CIA saw me crying at an episode of Shadow Hunters. As if my life couldn't get any more embarrassing....
3
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Carrie Mathison can watch me if she wants to :smug:
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Good, I hope they are indeed watching the terrorists, though that job has just become harder thanks to the malicious leaking of Wikileaks.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Yes, I really did just say that. The government does not care about your porn browsing habits, they do not care if you go to Infowars or vote Green or support Jeremy Corbyn. Despite what self-absorbed libertarians might think, they really do not care if you're using bitcoin and encrypting your communications; you're just not that important, get over yourself.

All these conspiro-libertario-nut-kooks are all using PGP to communicate with each other, and furtively whispering to each other, and only transacting in bitcoin, as if the CIA really gives a crap what some virgin neckbeard in Southern California is doing on the internet, or who he talks to, or the fact that he deludedly believes society will collapse and is buying gold.

The government only cares if you are a terrorist or engaged in espionage, and then it doesn't matter if you're using encryption or not; they'll simply inject malware into your computer and use keyloggers and other methodologies that allow them to swipe the data before it gets encrypted and goes over the 'wires'.

It really is unfortunate that there is a small, noisy minority of people who are utterly determined to frustrate all legitimate government efforts toward effective surveillance techniques out of the mistaken belief that the government gives a crap about their sad little lives.

Ergo, the government can tap into a Samsung TV if it wants... so what? It doesn't mean they're tapping into all Samsung TVs (and in fact they can tap into all brands of device if they really want to).
7
reply
Willy Pete
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
This is why you should tape over all webcams when not in use.
1
reply
coup^detat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by AlexanderHam)

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. .
Awful justification.

Every webcam should be taped.
1
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Good, I hope they are indeed watching the terrorists, though that job has just become harder thanks to the malicious leaking of Wikileaks.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Yes, I really did just say that. The government does not care about your porn browsing habits, they do not care if you go to Infowars or vote Green or support Jeremy Corbyn. Despite what self-absorbed libertarians might think, they really do not care if you're using bitcoin and encrypting your communications; you're just not that important, get over yourself.

All these conspiro-libertario-nut-kooks are all using PGP to communicate with each other, and furtively whispering to each other, and only transacting in bitcoin, as if the CIA really gives a crap what some virgin neckbeard in Southern California is doing on the internet, or who he talks to, or the fact that he deludedly believes society will collapse and is buying gold.

The government only cares if you are a terrorist or engaged in espionage, and then it doesn't matter if you're using encryption or not; they'll simply inject malware into your computer and use keyloggers and other methodologies that allow them to swipe the data before it gets encrypted and goes over the 'wires'.

It really is unfortunate that there is a small, noisy minority of people who are utterly determined to frustrate all legitimate government efforts toward effective surveillance techniques out of the mistaken belief that the government gives a crap about their sad little lives.

Ergo, the government can tap into a Samsung TV if it wants... so what? It doesn't mean they're tapping into all Samsung TVs (and in fact they can tap into all brands of device if they really want to).
I'm not saying I totally agree with all your post but you make good points that I do agree with. I certainly don't think the intelligence services have the resources to carry out such actions on a national scale even if they wanted to (which is unlikely IMO).
1
reply
Jesus_
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Good, I hope they are indeed watching the terrorists, though that job has just become harder thanks to the malicious leaking of Wikileaks.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Yes, I really did just say that. The government does not care about your porn browsing habits, they do not care if you go to Infowars or vote Green or support Jeremy Corbyn. Despite what self-absorbed libertarians might think, they really do not care if you're using bitcoin and encrypting your communications; you're just not that important, get over yourself.

All these conspiro-libertario-nut-kooks are all using PGP to communicate with each other, and furtively whispering to each other, and only transacting in bitcoin, as if the CIA really gives a crap what some virgin neckbeard in Southern California is doing on the internet, or who he talks to, or the fact that he deludedly believes society will collapse and is buying gold.

The government only cares if you are a terrorist or engaged in espionage, and then it doesn't matter if you're using encryption or not; they'll simply inject malware into your computer and use keyloggers and other methodologies that allow them to swipe the data before it gets encrypted and goes over the 'wires'.

It really is unfortunate that there is a small, noisy minority of people who are utterly determined to frustrate all legitimate government efforts toward effective surveillance techniques out of the mistaken belief that the government gives a crap about their sad little lives.

Ergo, the government can tap into a Samsung TV if it wants... so what? It doesn't mean they're tapping into all Samsung TVs (and in fact they can tap into all brands of device if they really want to).
Exactly. People think nowadays that they're so important and so powerful that the CIA give a damn what they do on the computer. Give them free reign, sure, maybe a few people will get hacked but i'd rather the CIA unravel a terrorist plot that's planned to kill dozens of people if it means that they find out Gary from Yorkshire enjoys **** porno
0
reply
Flying Lotus
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Yes, I really did just say that.
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

-Some irrelevant famous guy
2
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by coup^detat)
Awful justification.
It's not a justification. A justification is pointing to the facts that these programmes are used to surveil terrorists and foreign spies. A justification would be that they are narrowly-tailored and targeted to deal with the particular problems of terrorism and espionage, and are not used against political dissidents or opposition figures. A justification would be pointing the current high threat level and the need to counter devastating terror attacks like the mass shootings in Paris at the Bataclan.

The comment "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is not a justification so much as a criticism of, and comment on, the preposterous conspiracist obsession with attacking any and all government surveillance programmes, and the laughable belief of these conspiracy nuts that everyone is targeted and that the government actually cares about their sad little lives, rather than caring about interdicting terrorist threats and putting terrorists and spies in prison.

Every webcam should be taped.
Or... how 'bout the government can continue what it's doing now; that is, conducting narrowly-tailored and targeted surveillance programmes with the goal of interdicting terror plots and mitigating the risks from foreign espionage.

It's bizarre how whenever something like this is leaked, for example that the CIA can hack into a particular type of Android phone, the conspiro-nuts start hyperventilating and saying, "Omg, that means the CIA is tapping every person who has that type of phone".

No, it doesn't. It means the CIA has developed tactics and techniques that will allow them to tap into that type of phone when there is a terrorist or foreign agent target who possesses it.

Is it your position that the government should never be allowed to put anyone under electronic surveillance?
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Flying Lotus)
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

-Some irrelevant famous guy
Total strawman. I didn't say I don't care about privacy, I was pointing out that if you have nothing to hide (i.e. terrorist or espionage activities) then you're unlikely to come into the sights of the intelligence services in the first place. The vast majority of people will never come to the attention of the intelligence services.

For those who do and who are not engaged in such activities, the intelligence services will quickly realise they pose no threat and move on, and that person will never be any the wiser. Their data will be deleted, no harm done.

That is a completely different proposition from, say, adopting a policy that says that anyone can publish any of your private information on any platform, and you have no legal redress.

If you're going to criticise me, then at least criticise the position I actually hold.
0
reply
Flying Lotus
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
It's not a justification. A justification is pointing to the facts that these programmes are used to surveil terrorists and foreign spies. A justification would be that they are narrowly-tailored and targeted to deal with the particular problems of terrorism and espionage, and are not used against political dissidents or opposition figures. A justification would be pointing the current high threat level and the need to counter devastating terror attacks like the mass shootings in Paris at the Bataclan.

The comment "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is not a justification so much as a criticism of, and comment on, the preposterous conspiracist obsession with attacking any and all government surveillance programmes, and the laughable belief of these conspiracy nuts that everyone is targeted and that the government actually cares about their sad little lives, rather than caring about interdicting terrorist threats and putting terrorists and spies in prison.



Or... how 'bout the government can continue what it's doing now; that is, conducting narrowly-tailored and targeted surveillance programmes with the goal of interdicting terror plots and mitigating the risks from foreign espionage.

It's bizarre how whenever something like this is leaked, for example that the CIA can hack into a particular type of Android phone, the conspiro-nuts start hyperventilating and saying, "Omg, that means the CIA is tapping every person who has that type of phone".

No, it doesn't. It means the CIA has developed tactics and techniques that will allow them to tap into that type of phone when there is a terrorist or foreign agent target who possesses it.

Is it your position that the government should never be allowed to put anyone under electronic surveillance?
It's the lack of transparency and grey area regarding legality of spying on your own citizens.
0
reply
Flying Lotus
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Total strawman. I didn't say I don't care about privacy, I was pointing out that if you have nothing to hide (i.e. terrorist or espionage activities) then you're unlikely to come into the sights of the intelligence services in the first place. The vast majority of people will never come to the attention of the intelligence services.

For those who do and who are not engaged in such activities, the intelligence services will quickly realise they pose no threat and move on, and that person will never be any the wiser. Their data will be deleted, no harm done.

That is a completely different proposition from, say, adopting a policy that says that anyone can publish any of your private information on any platform, and you have no legal redress.

If you're going to criticise me, then at least criticise the position I actually hold.
Why are you so defensive I didn't criticize you at all.

What would your thoughts be, if these companies such as Samsung made it impossible for the CIA to spy on Americans through their own devices? Would you be against that?
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Jesus_)
Exactly. People think nowadays that they're so important and so powerful that the CIA give a damn what they do on the computer. Give them free reign, sure, maybe a few people will get hacked but i'd rather the CIA unravel a terrorist plot that's planned to kill dozens of people if it means that they find out Gary from Yorkshire enjoys **** porno
Exactly, well said sir. People see some article saying, "GCHQ now has the capability to hack X-type Android phones" and the hyperventilators will say, "Omg, I own that phone! GCHQ is hacking me!"

No, what it means is that our intelligence services are sensibly developing a whole range of tools and techniques to be able to hack particular types of devices so that when they have a terrorist or foreign agent target who possesses that device, they are able to tap into it.

The kooks seem to believe that when a story comes out that the CIA/GCHQ/MI5 can hack a particular type of device, it means they've hacking all such devices.

Furthermore, when I said "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", this doesn't mean I think people have no right to privacy. What it means is that if one has "nothing to hide" (i.e. not engaging in terrorist or espionage activity), they're unlikely to come to the attention of the intelligence services at all (the vast majority of people never will).

If someone isn't engaged in those activities and for some reason the intelligence services look into them and surveil them, they'll quickly realise they were mistaken, they'll cancel the surveillance operation and move on (particularly because they have limited resources and extremely large number of calls on their time and expertise, and they simply don't have money and time to waste on people who aren't a threat given at any one time, MI5 usually has thousands of individuals who fall into the category of terrorist supporters or sympathisers who they have to keep some level of watch on, and they're constantly worried that they'll miss something and the next they hear of it will be a bomb going off).

If someone is indeed innocent of any such activity and by bad luck come into the sights of the intelligence services, the services will quickly realise their mistake, cancel the operation, delete the data and move on. The person who was the subject of the surveillance will never even realise it, no harm done.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Flying Lotus)
It's the lack of transparency
And precisely what transparency are you asking for? Are you saying that the government should publish a list, each week, of everyone who is under surveillance?

By definition secret intelligence operations cannot be publicly disclosed. What you can have is oversight; that such operations require a judge to sign off on a warrant, and that you have other judicial figures involved in reviewing and overseeing the process of surveillance. This has always been required for surveillance of US citizens, and we have just introduced judicial authorisation in this country in the Investigatory Powers Bill last year.

and grey area regarding legality of spying on your own citizens.
What on earth does that even mean? The legality of spying on individuals present in the UK is very clear; if it occurs according to the warranting and authorisation process provided in RIPA 2000 (and now in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016), with a warrant provided by the appropriate authority, it is legal. The process has been approved by the representatives elected by the people to parliament. There is no "grey area" around the legality of surveillance of UK-based persons; the basis on which such acts are authorised is very clear in UK law.
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Flying Lotus)
I didn't criticize you at all.
The imputation of your quote, in response to my post, was fairly clear. But if you're now saying that you agree with what I posted, I accept you at your word

What would your thoughts be, if these companies such as Samsung made it impossible for the CIA to spy on Americans through their own devices? Would you be against that?
First, it would not be technically possible. An organisation with the technical expertise and R&D budget such as the CIA, NSA or GCHQ will always find technical means that allow them to place people under surveillance, and if there are certain technical barriers to taking remote control of devices like computers and smart TVs, then they can always resort to old-fashioned surveillance (breaking into your house and planting listening devices when you are out).

I think as a hypothetical that is less useful than asking, (1) What is the legal framework we put in place under which government organisations can request a warrant to put a citizen under surveillance? (2) On what bases will such a request be granted? (3) Who will be the decision-maker? (i.e. will it be a judicial decision-maker, or an administrative one).

But from the purely hypothetical perspective, I do not believe it would be moral for a device to be created which could not be surveilled; it is an anti-democratic measure. We are a nation of laws and of the rule of law. If the people's representatives (members of parliament) have agreed that in certain circumstances the police or intelligence should be allowed to request a warrant to put an individual under surveillance, and they have put the framework for such requests into law, and the police make a proper, lawful and valid request under that framework, it tends to frustrate the proper operation of the law if an electronic device can be made such that it can resist the implementation of a properly-granted surveillance warrant.
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
To all on this thread, if you're interested in the nuts and bolts of how the Security Service (MI5) puts people under surveillance, how they keep an eye on different categories of individuals, in how they are under tremendous pressure because there are thousands of people who are classified as being various levels of possible terrorist threat and MI5 has to keep varying levels of watch on all of them to ensure they're not planning terrorists acts or they haven't become more radicalised and got further into the terrorist milieu, then read this report.

It's the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee of parliament into the response by the Security Service / MI5 to the murder of Lee Rigby. In particular, the psychopaths who murdered Lee Rigby had been under MI5 surveillance at various times, but had slipped through the cracks. This is the constant worry of the intelligence community; how to allocate their time and resources to work out which individuals will develop into active terrorists and those who will stay on the fringes, those who will only provide logistical support, etc.

MI5’S PRIORITISATION OF OPERATIONS

MI5 prioritise investigations according to the risk they carry. The priority level can change during the course of an investigation if MI5 detects any change in the risk. There are four broad categories of priority for investigations:

• Priority 1 (P1a and P1b) is the highest, where there is intelligence to suggest attack planning.
• Priority 2 (P2H and P2M) is used where there is intelligence to suggest high or medium risk activity such as terrorist training.
• Priority 3 (P3) is assigned to investigations into uncorroborated intelligence.
• Priority 4 (P4) is used to investigate individuals where there is a risk of re-engagement with extremist activity.

Subjects of Interest to MI5 An SoI “is an individual who is being investigated because they are suspected of being a threat to national security”. In addition to the overall investigation or network being prioritised, every SoI within that investigation or network is also prioritised. SoIs are placed in Tiers (Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3) to reflect their position and importance within an investigation. The three tiers are defined as:

• Tier 1: Main targets of an investigation – targets will likely be involved in all aspects of the activities under investigation.
• Tier 2: Key contacts of the main targets – targets will likely be involved in a significant portion of the activities under investigation.
• Tier 3: Contact of Tier 1 and Tier 2 targets – targets will likely be involved in only marginal aspects of the activities under investigation.

As of October 2014, MI5 was investigating several thousand individual SoIs who are linked to Islamist extremist activity in the UK.
From a sidebar in the report linked above, where the report-writers outline to the reader some background information about how MI5 approaches this issue. Anyway, here is the report.

https://b1cba9b3-a-5e6631fd-s-sites....attredirects=0

the bear Tempest II Flying Lotus Bornblue

(Original post by Jesus_)
X
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by markova21)
I have both a Samsung TV and laptop. They can die of boredom observing me all bloody day long if they want.
I'm seeing a 'best of Markova' vid circulating CIA headquarters. :teehee:
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Willy Pete)
This is why you should tape over all webcams when not in use.
I'm surprised that they aren't shipped with a removable cover now, like a camera lens clip, the ability to hack web cams being so well known.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (96)
58.18%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (18)
10.91%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (21)
12.73%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (12)
7.27%
I haven't started researching yet (9)
5.45%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (9)
5.45%

Watched Threads

View All