False Alarm - Feds aren't monitoring your Google searches

[RoyalShock]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches

They do this 100 times per week. Scary.

[SB Shock]

Interesting how certain types of profiling I guess is acceptable.

[RoyalShock]

Presuming the article is true, the country is arguing about NSA "meta data" (a problem, yes), while some agency is outright snooping in your business without warrants.

[60Shock]

You want to get an immediate hit, google NSA.

I meant this as a joke, but I may not be too far off on the realism.

[RoyalShock]

It turns out it wasn't snooping by the government, but by one of the couple's former employers who got around to searching a personal computer and found the searches, then notified police.

[60Shock]

Just got an inquiry back from NSA referencing an email I sent which contained the word "SHOCKER" demanding as to if it has any connotation with terrorism.

Responded back, Yes, but only in the hearts and minds of our BB opponents.

[RoyalShock]

Just got an inquiry back from NSA referencing an email I sent which contained the word "SHOCKER" demanding as to if it has any connotation with terrorism.

Responded back, Yes, but only in the hearts and minds of our BB opponents.

BB? You're going to use a BB gun? Now you've put yourself squarely on the watch list!

[Rlh04d]

Think the title to this should probably be changed. The government is not monitoring your Google searches.

[1979Shocker]

Think the title to this should probably be changed. The government is not monitoring your Google searches.

That's true. Google is monitoring your Google searches.

[ABC]

Castor beans anyone?

[RoyalShock]

Think the title to this should probably be changed. The government is not monitoring your Google searches.

Fixed.

[Rlh04d]

That's true. Google is monitoring your Google searches.

I don't know why anyone is under the impression that they have any privacy online.

I'd bet a pretty good amount of money that almost everyone on this forum has tracking cookies, adware, malware, etc. on their computers right now. You're always one mistake away from identity theft and credit card fraud. The only thing that keeps you from being hacked is that no one really cares about your information. Google has insane amounts of your information and both stores and sells it. A significant chunk of Facebook is owned by the Russian government/mafia.

I'm by no means a "hacker", but I could go sit at a Starbucks right now and steal credit card numbers with simple, free software. How many people can see unsecured wireless networks of their neighbors? You could easily do the same thing to them. Anyone here know what shodanhq.com is? You can search specifically on that site for webcams that have default or no passwords/security and you can simply sit at your laptop, log into people's home security systems, and watch anything they've pointed an IP-based camera at. I've never checked, but I'd be surprised if a lot of those don't have the ability to control their movement from the internet as well. I'd imagine that's essentially what happened with this story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-...n-texas-child/

How many people that complain about security online bother to put any real security on their Facebook profiles, anyway? And not those insane chain-mails that people pass around every time Facebook puts out an update, where none of the suggested changes actually do anything. For that matter, how many don't realize that when you use your phone to send Facebook messages, it often includes geo-coordinates? The photos you take on your smart phones often have exif geolocation metadata embedded in them -- you can post a picture online without even realizing that the wrong person can extract the coordinates of where you took it with simple, free software. I'd imagine it would be very easy for a real hacker to get into the database of this forum -- I wonder how many people here use the same password for this site that they use as the password for the email account they registered with? I bet the only thing really protecting most of the data on this forum from a real hacker is that it's too small to be a legitimate target. And trust me -- that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's not our government that scares me -- it's reading about the Black Hat Briefings, or the activities of other governments, or Anonymous, and on, and on, and on. Our government is playing catchup, and operating under far more rules than our enemies operate under.

This lie we tell to ourselves that we have privacy online is a major problem. No one wants to admit how unsafe the internet is. People think that they can pay a bunch of money to Norton or McAfee and they're somehow safe from "the nerds in their mom's basements." Hell, John McAfee hates McAfee's software. He's a drug addict, with a huge rap sheet, and has admitted numerous times that his entire software company was built on lies and fish stories.

And every day we make the internet a bigger and bigger part of our lives. And the vast majority of people have no idea how it works, no idea what's happening around them, and no idea how to protect themselves. I doubt many people could honestly tell me how a website shows up in their browser after they type in the address. The worst part is that it really isn't THAT hard to protect yourself. It's just that most people don't know where to even start.

There isn't an expectation of privacy online ... there's an illusion of privacy.

[Rlh04d]

Oh, and going off on a tangent about McAfee, anyone who uses that software should probably watch this video from the guy who founded the company and created the software:

http://www.break.com/article/the-truth-behind-the-john-mcafee-antivirus-removal-video-2466375

[1979Shocker]

NSA disguised itself as Google to spy, say reports

If a recently leaked document is any indication, the US National Security Agency -- or its UK counterpart -- appears to have put on a Google suit to gather intelligence.

Here's one of the latest tidbits on the NSA surveillance scandal (which seems to be generating nearly as many blog items as there are phone numbers in the spy agency's data banks).

Earlier this week, Techdirt picked up on a passing mention in a Brazilian news story and a Slate article to point out that the US National Security Agency had apparently impersonated Google on at least one occasion to gather data on people. (Mother Jones subsequently pointed out Techdirt's point-out.)

Brazilian site Fantastico obtained and published a document leaked by Edward Snowden, which diagrams how a "man in the middle attack" involving Google was apparently carried out.

A technique commonly used by hackers, a MITM attack involves using a fake security certificate to pose as a legitimate Web service, bypass browser security settings, and then intercept data that an unsuspecting person is sending to that service. Hackers could, for example, pose as a banking Web site and steal passwords.

[1979Shocker]

NSA ran secret test on tracking Americans' cell phones

Lose your cell phone? Well, you can't expect the NSA to help you find it. Or can you?

In the latest revelation kicked up by the privacy brouhaha surrounding leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, it's come to light that the US National Security Agency tested its systems' ability to handle bulk data on the location of Americans' cell phones (and thus oftentimes, of course, on the location of Americans themselves).

The information comes not from the Snowden documents, but from an answer written out by Director of National Security James Clapper in preparation for potential questions at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The New York Times obtained a copy of the text prior to the hearing, and NSA Director Keith Alexander subsequently delivered at least some of the remarks at the event, according to blog Politico.