Showing posts with label hacking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hacking. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
Prism Planet
Anyone to which this flap over Prism is a surprise is, frankly, naive and ill-informed. The only news to me was being introduced to this new name.
Five Eyes SIGINT or ECHELON has been known to exist for decades and was the feature of a European Parliament report back in 2001 where the threat of industrial espionage is understood as paramount. It is clear that every action on every phone and web based system, across the world, is possible to have been subject to intercept and likely subject of analysis.
See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
The technical possibilities remain unknown but it is evident that these systems employ super-computers of gigantic capacity capable of robotic artificial-intelligence analysis of all interactions and associations, including geographic, to seek-out correlations of interest and so identify subjects for closer observation and deeper analysis.
It is also clear these automated systems have the same ability to examine actual communications content, including spoken, on a wide and random scale to further identify and analyse targets of interest.
Whilst it is comforting to think this is only done to protect society from extraordinary threats it is evident even from the synopsis of the EU report, sighted above, that this system is prospectively used for a far wider mode of operation than that: ranging from industrial espionage to the political subjugation of other sovereign states.
But rather than the EU acting to curtail these activities the closing remarks of their 2001 report demonstrates no less than a jealousy and a desire to form the same system or to even integrate and share.
See P192 - 12. The EU's external relations and intelligence gathering
So I would ask the question (but do not anticipate an answer): How deeply involved is the EU with Prism and indeed does it benefit from the intelligence derived, especially in relation to the EU member state's sovereign governments?
Whilst for the US to risk allowing the intelligence services of each and every EU member state to draw from the intelligence and analysis they derive from their vast network is improbable it is more likely a focused EU intelligence service would be considered a less risky partner to develop.
Once all the tools desirable to a draconian and authoritarian state have been put into place all that remains is for that state to arise, to become evident, when resistance will have be made all-but imposable.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Who Pays Charon ?
In August 2009 James Murdoch spoke at the Edinburgh International Television Festival saying:
"In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy," and "As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion"
From about this point in time the 'phone hacking' issue has become harder and harder to keep in the long grass.
My reading is James Murdoch does not have the blessing enjoyed by his father. He is having his wings clipped. He is being chastised.
And there are useful messages that can be transmitted from this unfolding series of events, such as: there is a difference between a mogul and a maverick.
On the 29 March 2004 the Guardian ran a 'joky' item revealing Evelyn de Rothschild was at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the day candidates were being interviewed for the post of BBC chairman.
The BBC is blessed by the real ruling oligarchy, whoever that may be. The BBC is one of the most effective tools in the elaborate mechanisms of control. Trust in the BBC is paramount, both domestic and international, its credibility must never be brought into question; especially by one of such news-media standing. Calling the BBC "state-sponsored journalism" and casting its lack of "independence" to be a threat to "plurality and democracy" is a sin. And worse; using the 'Orwell' word in connection to the BBC, highlighting its 'near-monopoly of information' as being a 'guarantee' of 'manipulation and distortion' could not be allowed to remain unpunished.
Far from the BBC having the monopoly on information, it is the Maxwell organisations that has the international spread and keeping them under check is important to the elite too. Too much power in any pair of hands is not to be allowed. No invitations to the high table are granted.
This is a trial of strength. That does not mean the Maxwells (oops I mean Murdoch) will spend the rest of their days breaking rocks in Dartmoor. They will, though, be broken, whipped, pilloried and left to the scavengers as an example to whoever else thinks they hold a whip hand, who are careless with their granted powers and wealth or who think they can trample upon the labyrinthine and win.
Of cause, I do not doubt such a news empire has cupboards full of skeletons which many, on the rungs of power and authority, know of and fear revelation. It patently looks that this is why two UK governments, and their police, have strived to bury and minimise the affair. They are all implemented, deeply I have no doubt, and if the case expands to its full potential its destructive force will be unprecedented. In comparison Watergate will look like a washout.
The press will lose its confidence and power for any meaningful investigation and will instead just publish simple reiteration of the news agencies output.
From time to time, our glorious masters believe, the pack must be shuffled. Predicting the exact order of play is hard but, if they do not like the hands against which they play, they can keep causing a shuffle, again and again.
The outcome of this shuffle may include the end of the UK as it is absorbed into the EU as a series of regions, its economy shattered, the credibility of its government and law enforcement irrevocably discredited. Indirect collateral damage may be unintentional but it is also inconsequential. More likely it is also included in the plans or even is at the core of the plan.
Friday, 8 July 2011
More to Phone-hacking than Accessing Voice-mail with Passwords
There is far more to this phone hacking caper than simply accessing voice-mail with passwords.
Cell phones can be activated remotely, loaded with software that takes control of the phone, records text messages, records calls, uses the inbuilt microphones as a listening device/bug, takes all GPS location data, address-book data, call logs, web-history, everything - current and historic - and transmits all, as and when required, to the hijacker when it can then also receive new instructions.
The cellular network transmitter/station local to a target phone can be replaced with a decoy transmitter that relays the signal on to the real network. The phone must give the transmitter a code to prove who it is to the network but the network does not have to give the phone any code to prove it is the real network. The phone can be told to transmit without encryption and the false cell transmitter can gain control of the phone in such a way, to download hijack software to take permanent covert control of the phone.
A 'virus' can be sent to the phone to similarly take control of it or the phone can be infected if it is in the possession of the hacker for a very short time. It is possible to hack a phone via it's wireless connection, blue-tooth or even via a text message.
This may be the reason why the 'authorities' do not want phone intercept intelligence used as evidence in court; because they do not want to plainly admit what can be done and what is being done. Perhaps this is why the police have been reluctant to further investigations into this matter or perhaps there is another layer between the journalists, the cash, the police and who is doing the actual covert spying on mobile phones.
LINKS
Cell phones can be activated remotely, loaded with software that takes control of the phone, records text messages, records calls, uses the inbuilt microphones as a listening device/bug, takes all GPS location data, address-book data, call logs, web-history, everything - current and historic - and transmits all, as and when required, to the hijacker when it can then also receive new instructions.
The cellular network transmitter/station local to a target phone can be replaced with a decoy transmitter that relays the signal on to the real network. The phone must give the transmitter a code to prove who it is to the network but the network does not have to give the phone any code to prove it is the real network. The phone can be told to transmit without encryption and the false cell transmitter can gain control of the phone in such a way, to download hijack software to take permanent covert control of the phone.
A 'virus' can be sent to the phone to similarly take control of it or the phone can be infected if it is in the possession of the hacker for a very short time. It is possible to hack a phone via it's wireless connection, blue-tooth or even via a text message.
This may be the reason why the 'authorities' do not want phone intercept intelligence used as evidence in court; because they do not want to plainly admit what can be done and what is being done. Perhaps this is why the police have been reluctant to further investigations into this matter or perhaps there is another layer between the journalists, the cash, the police and who is doing the actual covert spying on mobile phones.
LINKS
'Pinging': how phone hacking targets were located with help from the police NEW!
Phone hacking: Met police to investigate mobile tracking claims NEW!
Monday, 13 November 2006
A free society is defined by being free from authoritarian control
Will any fresh legislation be introduced with the advent of 'ID cards' to assure they can never become the manipulative and coercing tool of an oppressive illiberal government? Civil liberties are retained not only to protect from current government, they provide a defence from what government may become. Should a less benign future government or situation emerge, we would find that by virtue of the 'ID society' proposed that we are subject to a totalitarian government's strict control. A free society is defined by being free from authoritarian controls and not by just relying on a government that says it can be trusted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





