I would now consider paying for services that offer real private email, social networking and file sharing / cloud backups, where none of those services were controlled by an US controlled entity and where the NSA couldn't snoop around in my private life. However boring my private life is, it is still mine.
I wonder if anyone else would part with cold hard cash though, or is it just me? There maybe a niche there.
Paying with your credit card? That's being tracked. Your back account transactions are being indexed and collated.
They're probably in all of our computers already. I've been operating a windows7 honeypot as my "main" computer for several years, generating what appears to be legit "personal" traffic. You wouldn't believe the shit I've found, and it doesn't appear to be your garden variety cyber criminals or foreign state actors. And I'm not even that smart.
It appears that the honeypot has been compromised in both a domestic botnet running in system memory by "authorities" local to the US, and also that there are background processes in Windows that are inspecting the filesystem for binaries matching certain signatures no matter how the user configures the system, even "stubbing out" the visible processes that would make sense, like their anti-malware and indexing services. Basically a Windows machine is owned from the get go.
Unfortunately this is not exactly my particular area of expertise, so for me it's like glimpsing a shadow through smoke and a moving window, mostly an impression but something that has become more and more sophisticated despite my attempts to prevent it via traditional and modern methods of forensics, and even weird things like audible and inaudible platter noise when there shouldn't be heavy (this is the key for me) disk io.
I should say as well, I am an interested layman when it comes to this stuff. I have a knack for maths and statistical analysis, so please take my comments for what they're worth, which is only anecdotal
I certainly understand the gravity of what I'm alleging, and I wish I had formal training in this stuff so I could publish my observations with some sort of rigour. I will say my methods are pretty crude and consist of:
Process of elimination as far as the processes are concerned. Basically I have been paring back the processes that are visible to me in memory until it should be a bare minimum for a functional Windows kernel in memory, and stubbing out the non-essential processes I find with empty "stubs" so that the hooks are still there but non-functional. Then observing disk io and memory usage, and repeating. Not very scientific, but again, I'm an amateur.
The stuff about disk platter noise is simply recording the audible and inaudible frequencies generated from the platter (I haven't upgraded to a ssd for the system disk yet), and then running regressions on the wave forms to detect anomalies via the noise generated by the platter and the reading head interacting. I was interested in looking into the inaudible frequencies because it seemed like a good way to cloak disk io from the average user.
As far as the botnet stuff, I've done some MITM packet analysis and some simple stuff like tracerts and observing changes in routing. Right now the box is routing all name service through what appears to be another compromised box in the US state of Georgia, though I'm hesitant to do much network topology due to port-scanning being considered the same as cracking.
This is all just a hobby, and I'm sure some of the stuff I've mentioned about is either very crazy sounding or perhaps already known to people more knowledgeable than me. I grew up when pcs were still a weird hobby for society, and so this sort of stuff seems like things we should be able to do without fearing repercussions.
Also, I only posted this to give context to what I had posted before, so take it for whatever you want to. I'm interested in non-violent solutions to improving society and I don't want to jeopardize that.
Just looking at the disk activity of reads, inspecting the memory dumps from these periods, and picking out what I can via a hex editor as far as what the "inspection" appears to be looking for via checksums derived from file blocks, which appear to be tied to images and videos. I'm assuming that this is domestic and not foreign, which I certainly could be wrong about. I'm also assuming they're looking for kiddie fiddlers, which I doubt someone like China would be all that interested in, but maybe the PRC is for blackmail purposes.
A lot of this stuff is sort of ephemeral and I don't have any credentials to really convince anyone. That's why I would post this, maybe someone else knows more than me. Like I said, take this as anecdotal and perhaps incorrect... You'll notice a lot of assumptions by me.
Well, the behaviour you are describing just sounds like Microsoft's anti-virus software - and they have a datacenter in Georgia - something to consider.
If you are genuinely concerned I think it is pretty simple to contact real professionals with whatever data you have.
I don't know, the name service resolution terminated in a server with an open smtp relay, which might be what you're talking about but sounds strange. Plus, it's name service resolution for _all_ outbound traffic. Thanks for the tip though. Like I said, I'm just a computer hobbyist
also, I determined that even unplugging the honeypot when "not in use" was not enough, as it appears to be using "bursts" similar to special forces radio techniques, when availability resumes to its cnc system.
For the common man, it would be easier to pay in cash to avoid credit card transaction tracking, rather than setup your own mail server to avoid email snooping.
Unfortunately such a social network would probably be so dominated by tinfoil-hat crazies that it would be unusable. The thing about social networks is of course that the people you want to socially network with need to be there.
On the other hand you would be fully up to date at all times on the evils of vaccines and water fluoridation.
You could just agree to disagree with them without expanding such emotional energy.
Though I wonder when dissemination of vaccines will be more of a science instead of "We know this strand of virus is going around, everyone come here and get a shot of xyz because it is good for you and will protect you all", especially since overdosage of the massess will eventually lead to resistant strands.
It would be really cool to have a personal 23andMe api where people can test themselves without sending data to a 3rd party.
That's certainly the most mature way to handle such disagreements, I don't think there is any disagreement there. However, it's damn hard to accept that line of reasoning when those opinions lead to a decrease in herd immunity and put the lives of immunocompromised individuals, such as myself, and others at risk because of pseudoscience, a single debunked study, and a former porn star. It's not simply unacceptable, it's asinine and infuriating.
And putting oneself in a fit because someone is sharing their viewpoint (as opinion or fact) isn't asinine?
There is also a decrease in "herd immunity" when a population has been flooded with a drug to the point where such immunizations have no effect à la "superbugs".
Your comment seems to misunderstand the difference between vaccinations and antibiotic treatments. Herd immunity disallows an organism a foothold in a population, it is not present to become immune - it is something entirely separate from the emergence of superbugs immune to all or most known antibiotic treatments.
How is the emergence of superbugs immunity to antibiotic treatments entirely separate when they are different strands of organisms that were previously treated?
Vaccinations and treatment are completely different things and vaccines and antibiotics are also completely different things. There are plenty of resources on the Internet that explain these matters - if you can get past the anti-vaccine psuedoscience search engine spam. For example you can find plenty of people trying to blame resistant Whooping Cough on vaccines when the most likely cause is the reduction of vaccination rates, not the presence of vaccinations in the first place.
I'd be the first to admit I am no expert so if you have real interest in the topic I would go looking for someone better qualified to talk to than me.
"When antibiotics are used in an attempt to kill certain bacteria, a few may survive because they happen to have the appropriate genes; thus they will become the predominant strain. For instance, if the antibiotic kills a million bacteria but doesn’t kill five that are resistant, at their incredible multiplication rate—bacteria divide every 20 to 30 minutes—after 15 hours there will be 5 million descendants of those five, all of them resistant to the antibiotic.Some bacteria carry antibiotic resistance genes that can be passed to other species of bacteria.
These transferable genes often carry resistance to many antibiotics.
Staphylococcus aureus is a common germ that normally lives on your skin, but can gain entry to the body and cause abscesses, bone infections, pneumonia or infection of the heart valves. In the 1940s virtually all strains of S. aureus were susceptible to penicillin. Today, more than 90% of S. aureus strains are resistant to penicillin and many other antibiotics that were once effective against these bacteria."[0]
"One alternative, at least for some types of bacteria, is vaccination. Since Hib vaccines were introduced, the number of new cases of invasive Hib infections—both drug-sensitive and resistant—in infants and children in the U.S. has decreased by 99%."[0]
So yes, vaccines and antibiotics are different, but are meant to address the same things. From this most of the what we have seen so far has come from resistance to antibiotics, where vacancies have helping to address that void in some cases that didn't turn out to be accidental inoculation.
No vaccine is 100% effective; no vaccine is 100% safe. As with any drug, there are risks and side effects with vaccines, although serious side effects are mostly rare. However, there is a much higher standard of safety expected of preventive vaccines than for drugs because:
Vaccines are generally given to many people most of whom are healthy. People tolerate far less risk from Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines than the antibiotics used to treat the diseases it causes, for example.
Many vaccines are given to children at the ages when developmental and other problems are being recognized for the first time. Because something happened at about the same time does not mean that one caused the other. (See Cause or Coincidence)
Some vaccines are mandated by state legislatures in order to protect the health and welfare of the public. Some people think that this violates their civil rights, however."[1]
"Perception of risk depends on people’s experiences and knowledge. A person who experienced an adverse event after vaccination—or thinks that they know someone who did—will perceive vaccines as riskier than a person who has not. Conversely, one who has survived a vaccine-preventable disease—or a physician who has treated that disease—will likely be an advocate for vaccines.
Although concerns about vaccine safety are valid—and necessary—we must carefully examine each claim about the risks of immunizations"[1]
Taking the middle road on these issues is more productive than outright dismissal and becoming enraged, because it acknowledges some truth the individuals experiences/opinions or w/e that might be contrary to someone elses.
I am not the poster who becomes enraged about vaccine-deniers, in case you've got that mixed up. Though I generally find that vaccine-deniers are people such that they have little interest in becoming better informed or having their opinion changed so discussion is fruitless. (Though I hope to meet some that are otherwise one day!)
Not vaccinating people and thus allowing a disease to run rampant in the population, drive up infant mortality, and be present and breeding and thus mutating is not in any way shape or form the same thing as the over-use, mis-use, or inevitable decline in effectiveness of antibiotics. The moral and scientific issues are very, very different. That was what I was taking issue with in my original response.
I find nothing of what you wrote and quoted in the above comment to disagree with.
I don't deny the science behind the vaccines, but the motives of the people who ultimately control the process. The same people have taken away the average person privacy IMHO will as easily take away say his capability to produce children. But I guess it's easier to close your eyes and keep imagining that the elite has the same moral as yours and would never do horrible things.
If you do not deny the science behind vaccines then you probably have a moral responsibility to make sure you and your children are vaccinated. I know how bad it is to have vaccinated people in the population but you only believe or suspect that the people producing that vaccines are part of an evil cabal of elites looking to destroy society.
I think you have to go with the certainty on that one, don't you?
"Big Data" is the buzzword of the day but I think "Big Privacy" will be a bigger trend in the very near future. Right now it's technically possible to put together the resources to give your self a fairly good bit of privacy, just as it's always been possible to write a cron job to do remote backup before Dropbox. However this takes both a bit of technical skill, a good chunk of time and planning, and there's still a chance you'll miss something.
So I believe there's a lot of money to be made in providing instant privacy the same way dropbox provides instant backups. Likewise as statistics + programming = data scientist,
statistics + programming + security = privacy scientist
Sadly this also means that privacy will become a commodity and I can easily imagine a tiered system of privacy based on cost (eg 19.99/mo get's you a secure network + encrypted files, 99.99/mo get's you text re-structuring to avoid stylometeric identification.)
I would also consider paying for this. However, as pointed out in the comments below, a social network like Facebook only works because a majority of the majority of people's friends are there.
But, I think the more interesting point is that even if the system were hosted outside of US jurisdiction, or anyone's for that matter, they'll just find a way to make it difficult for you to access, as they do with thepiratebay - by blocking access through the ISPs. The inconvenience/complication of working around these ISP level filters, means that a lot of people won't know how or can't be bothered to work around them. The same would apply to a social network.
As I understand it, the US has no controls over the NSA spying out side of the US. So, you'd have less protection. Even if they did, as a result of this, and knowing how other governments bend to US will, I wouldn't trust anything connected to the internet at all.
Privacy wise, the internet is dead. Just, forget it. The war is lost. They can, there for, they will. And that's that.
I mean, does any one seriously think these abilities and powers will be go, or be given up?
I wonder if anyone else would part with cold hard cash though, or is it just me? There maybe a niche there.