This really isn't any worse than the other invasions of privacy that have been revealed – but it's much easier to point at it as an egregious and visceral violation of privacy. Even though webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK have been doing, this may be some of the best fodder for arguments to limit such activities. So thank you, UK, for being so dumb.
> Even though webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK
Blackmail. Polticial, economic, and spying-related informant-turning blackmail.
The CIA's primary business is getting informants and agents all over the world. Usually via some threat. This is perfect fodder for it.
Using cheating and sex (ie homosexuality in the 50s) against people is one of the most classic examples of recruiting strategies for intelligence agencies.
Charlie Stross features a gay couple in one of his novels, and one of the conditions of their employment for a top secret government office is that they must be explicitly out about their homosexuality - one attends a Pride Parade once a year in order to comply with these regulations.
That's a pretty common requirement for many classified positions in the real world (not having to attend pride parade, but being out about your sexual preferences).
is this true ?! Any evidence? Is there a page on whitehouse.gov with F R Smith - foot fetish (moderate), would like to be a Gimp but never found the right owner.
Yes it's sort of true - the concern here is about being susceptible to blackmail or coercion, which rules out pretty much anyone who has a personal secret which they feel ashamed about or would go to great lengths to keep secret. If you're gay and out, there's no security concern, but if you're in the closet, there is a chance someone could find out and blackmail you into revealing secret information.
This also applies to people with large amounts of debt - which IIRC is one of the most common reasons people are denied clearance. See here for more info (scroll to "Vulnerability to Coercion"): http://www.dhra.mil/perserec/adr/falsification/falsification...
The debt issues has less to do with blackmail, and more to do with having serious financial strains. They're concerned you'll sell information in exchange for money so that you can pay off your debts. It's the same for drug addiction and gambling.
I think there was a guy that was caught spying recently that had a gambling addiction.
Same thing. Image you are Iran. If you have 10 people to pick from to bribe and ask to work for you. Pick the one with largest dept and offer to pay that debt in return for co-operation.
The analogy is pointing out that homosexuality is not a taboo because it's been exploited, it's being exploited because it's a taboo.
Your original statement seemed to suggest that it is still a taboo because those who wish to exploit it want it that way. The cause is not power brokers, it's everyone (or enough of everyone) who makes taboos' shamefulness persist.
It is no accident that socially conservative ideologies are correlated with right-wing / authoritarian politics. It is such an age-old instrument of manipulation and control that I am tempted to believe that it is innate and ingrained into our biology.
It is no accident that socially conservative ideologies are correlated with right-wing / authoritarian politics
Now you are just being silly. The USSR sent homosexuals to the gulags. China considered homosexuality to be a mental illness up 'til 2002, it is only when they started to become capitalist that they relaxed! In the UK it is the right-wing Tories that are bringing in gay marriage.
Attitudes towards homosexuality are simply not correlated with left-right politics.
I'll cite a source for you: "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Not to get too far afield from the original post, or to start a religious debate where we end up calling each other Hitler, but I've got some good stuff for you:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NIV)
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44 ESV)
So, um, not a great book to pull random quotes from as a source.
I think the point was that homosexuality has been taboo for a lot longer than the CIA has been around. So while they obviously have found it useful there's no reason to think they needed to work to keep it taboo for so long.
It has been both taboo to the point of the death penalty, and widely and openly practiced all the way through to outright championed (Relevant Futurama quote: "Let us party like the Greeks of old... you know the ones I mean!"), by any number of societies throughout history.
I've always thought it was odd that people got upset about homosexuality and not about adultery. Religiously they are equally bad.
Perhaps it's because it's not really a religious issue (just using that as an excuse).
Biologically people are repelled by homosexuality and attracted to adultery. That affects their state of mind, and they look for a reason for that and catch upon religious arguments.
> I've always thought it was odd that people got upset about homosexuality and not about adultery.
What people get upset about is a cultural variable that is not consistent across times and places. Plenty of times and places, people have gotten at least as upset about adultery as about homosexuality.
Hahaha! It has always amazed me how people indebted to intellectual discussions via the culture of a forum completely disregard all historical context of an ancient peoples. xD
I get that it's the "in" thing now to hate on ancient texts to seem smart but ...
Quoting a writing from the ancient Jewish leader Moses is equivalent to studying the history of the peoples in those times and locations. Please, note that basically ALL nations used an enslavement "banking" system that basically boiled down to: You pay off your credit card by working for the creditor for a few years (or for however many years the owner thought was sufficient).
It has absolutely nothing to do with recent American slavery traditions embedded in deep racism and superiority complexes.
The only similarities are the translation of the word: slave.
The economics of ancient cultures was drastically different from how it has been for all post-1600s Bank of England cultures. :P
Ancient texts are fine. Great fun, so long as they are treated as ancient texts.
I don't think that anybody is distressed by the Code of Hammurabi, but that is because there are not people going around sincerely stating that they believe the Code of Hammurabi to be timeless and perfectly just, and Hammurabi himself to be someone to look to for ethical or moral guidance.
It is only when the historical context of ancient documents is purposely ignored or denied that those ancient documents become the targets of modern criticism.
Says who? Definitely not Jesus himself as quoted in the New Testament (his words, directly quoted):
Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished."
The "law or the prophets" is, of course, everything written in the Old Testament, where different chapters were attributed to the different prophets already in Jesus' time.
He makes it even stronger:
"Ye have heard that it was said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery': but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28)
Verily, read thine Bible, if you believe it's inspired by God. Read it yourself. Don't believe what others interpret.
Or maybe accept that we shouldn't take that book too seriously?
As an atheist from an "orthodox Christian" background (as opposed to protestant, baptist or the catholic church), I cannot really understand why people who call themselves Christians even quote the Bible, and seemingly only awful anachronistic parts, as opposed to the New Tastement.
As another atheist (from a Lutheran background) who has read the bible (it kind of precipitated the whole atheist thing), I totally understand why many Christians believe that the old testament is relevant and believe that their god considers homosexuality to be sinful.
That wasn't what I was taught in my particular brand of Christianity, but having read the book I can totally see where other denominations pick it up. They aren't hallucinating or imagining hateful things in that book, it's all in there, ready to be reinforced or erased and excused, depending on which particular interpretation you take.
I think that reading the bible and coming to the conclusion that the god described in it hates homosexuality (among any number of other things) and that Jesus did not reverse those prejudices is perfectly reasonable. It's also somewhat reasonable (though far less so I think) to take away the idea that the Christian god is genuinely all loving and that Jesus absolved that god of all of it's sins (wasn't he suppose to do that for humanity instead? But it seems like he is most often invoked to absolve the christian god of his sins...).
(That of course isn't to say that I believe the sort of hateful Christianity seen prominently in certain parts of America (and other parts of the world) is acceptable. While I think their interpretation of the Bible is reasonable, I think it is _unreasonable_ for them to believe the Bible is divinely inspired, or that the god they read from those pages is worthy of being worshiped.)
They actually don't quote all of the really awful anachronistic parts, just the parts that align with their world view. It's not like they have a problem with shellfish, after all.
To be more accurate, Jesus' ministry and teaching was a fulfillment of the law (the previous commandments) and the Old Testament, not a replacement. The law is still a valuable resource for Christians in understanding the character and holiness of God, among other things.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus speaking in Matthew 5:17
Jesus affirmed the law and called people further into true righteousness, which can never come from following rules, but requires a transformation of the heart that only God can accomplish. That is what He is talking about in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5).
I see you decided to omit Matthew 5:18. Don't pretend it doesn't exist. They are the actual words of Jesus if you believe that the Bible was inspired by god. See my other comment here for more.
It is the next sentence said by Jesus himself, confirming the law of the prophets: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished."
I don't see heaven and earth passed away, so the laws of the prophets still hold according to Jesus himself. He said that. Written one sentence after the one you quote claiming the opposite. So you decided not to believe what Jesus said. Fine with me. I believe the Bible is written by humans and that the humans invented all the gods.
But anyway we should discuss what GCHQ did with webcam streams of at least millions of people! What is your opinion on that?
You're correct, the law has not passed away. The requirements of it have been fully met (fulfilled) by Christ. By submitting our lives to Christ, his perfect fulfillment of God's law is credited to us, thereby freeing us from the penalty of the law.
This is obviously off topic from the original post, but hopefully it's a valuable conversation. It's actually a really important point that is reiterated throughout the New Testament explicitly and foreshadowed throughout the entire Old Testament.
I think we've probably reached the limit of productive conversation on the topic. You seem intent on clinging to a contradiction that doesn't exist in the text. But it was good to discuss it.
Yeah, the GCHQ thing is jacked up but not surprising. The connectedness and anonymity of the digital world and its increasing integration into our lives makes for some pretty scary scenarios.
> webcam stills may be the least important (or useful) spying the US and UK have been doing
It ties individuals faces to online accounts and computers and possibly addresses. Especially combined with increasing amounts of CCTV it removes further anonymity.
I was also disturbed by the "dissemination of offensive images is a disciplinary offence" statement which implied that was not the case for other images and that it is only a disciplinary offence rather than a criminal one (misconduct in public office if there isn't anything else).
But you can't use that blackmail tool without revealing that you were spying illegally. Revealing that would be worse for the blackmailer than the blackmailee.
Revealing that would be worse for the blackmailer than the blackmailee.
Isn't that a bit optimistic? As things typically work out today, no official would ever be personally identified and held to account in court if something like this "accidentally" leaked. Meanwhile, the subject of the leak could have their life destroyed any number of ways, even if the image that gets leaked was taken out of context or otherwise not an accurate reflection of the person in question.
We've seen far too many cases recently where innocent people have been severely harmed, on rare occasions even literally killed, by some part of the government, and yet remarkably often no-one is ever held responsible. Until the authority for these kinds of actions must be tied to a named individual, and the identity of that named individual can never be concealed from a court, and that named individual faces meaningful consequences for any abuses that happen on their watch unless they can show that their subordinate did not follow a proper direction (in which case responsibility transfers to the identified subordinate), and any ultimate subordinate involved in such an action who can't identify the responsible individual gets no more legal protection than any other citizen who did the same thing, this problem will continue.
Who said you have to reveal that you were spying illegally?
Just saying "we have this on you", this being something that can stop a career of a politician, or break his marriage, for example, will paralyse most people. And of course they make psychological assesments about who are most vulnerable and most likely to respond well to blackmail.
Second, you don't have to reveal anything. It's not like the agency himself has to do the blackmail and declare who they are and what they did. They can delegate that to some associate, who might not even know who is giving him commands. Or they can do it with anonymous messages ("We have this picture of you. You don't know who we are, but vote that on this law").
Well, if a security service decides it needs to blackmail someone, they're hardly going to send them a letter on official letterhead. In this case I imagine they'd pretend to be something like a small hacking group, infiltrating individual webcams arbitrarily/opportunistically. Something like that.
LOL That would only be true if they were willing to break the law (by blackmailing somebody, yet felt the strange need to making a legal accusation.
It's very hard to defend against institutional blackmail. The blackmailer just has to make their demands, that need to be followed "if you known what's good for you". Generally, that will work and no further steps are necessary.
If somebody decides to resist the demand in any way, you simply place some of those pictures of underage kid - perhaps from the project mentioned in this article - and place a "tip" with the local police. Of course, they could always "parallel construction" it. Many options there, because you never actually have to show real evidence in court, or even show up. You just have to get the ball rolling, and the child-porn accusation will do the rest for you.
In fact, it's important to make a big show about it, because coming down hard on the occasional person that questions your demands serves as an excellent way to discourage other from trying.
Anonymous is a loose collective that has already seen headlines in mainstream media, and it's impossible to prove that Anonymous did or did not do something. "Anonymous" takes credit for a lot of things that 4chan had no involvement in, for example.
Simply saying "the hacker collective known as Anonymous has released photos of..." and there's literally no way for the general public to dispute it. Anonymous is a pretty convenient cover for government blackmail.
Its additional. I haven't put thought into which I'd most want them to stop but the combination is worse than either on their own. It also allows the possibility of automated face recognition and social graph tracking in public places via CCTV (if not now then in the future).
Because they only cost $1-2 and people feel like they add value to the device (to use it with Skype, Yahoo!, Google+ Circles, and so on).
There is no evidence right now that the intelligence services can remotely activate webcams on any device of their choosing. They would likely need to first install malware on most devices to accomplish that.
There is, however, evidence that FedGov can remotely activate webcams on some devices of their choosing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fbis-searc...
The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations, said Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico...
They would likely need to first install malware on most devices to accomplish that.
They can easily do that, that isn't really in doubt, though of course that's not why things have cameras, as you say, cameras are cheap and quite useful, no need for a grand conspiracy.
I'm sure they wouldn't bother to exploit a machine unless they decide to target you specifically, but if they do decide to, given the resources they have available and the imperfect security on almost every OS, network and hardware you might use, they can easily use your phone or computer to record by installing malware. It's really very straightforward, all they need is a zero day in any of the network connected applications you use, baseband of your phone etc.
William Binney (worked on Stellar Wind) and Edward Snowden have gone on record confirming these capabilities are used routinely - in particular I remember Binney confirming mobiles used as mics, even when turned off. For him this is a matter of fact capability, not at all as dangerous as mapping all our activities at once from metadata and content sweeps on a broad scale - I tend to agree.
This really isn't any worse than the other invasions of privacy that have been revealed
I think you're incorrect on this. The level of intrusion here is much greater. There is a reason why video phones never really replaced voice: they are too revealing. This borders on voyeurism.
Remember the stories of TSA agents joking about what they saw on full body scanners? I don't believe it is credible to think that these types of photos aren't used in a similar fashion here even though it's a different country and agency. And that's actually the least damaging way they could be used.
Whether it's worse or not, it's violating our privacy to an extent where there is barely anything left to be exposed.
I assume they do the same with Skype, Lync etc. I hate the thought of being photographed by these creepy "intelligence officers" every time I'm on a webcam. Probably it also happens when we don't use the webcam.
Sadly, even though it'd rile up their readers, the Daily Mail is unlikely to print it because it does so in a way that goes against the paper's political leanings. They're very selective about which outrages they stir.
This is important because this is perceived as completely different by the public. The idea that someone is watching you through your computer will have a much greater impact than someone scanning your emails.
Exactly. Although really, we should be just as concerned about the other stuff, if not more so. But people get why this is really wrong. Because of the penises and vaginas.
This is the difference between someone reading that you do weird sexual things with your partner and having pictures to prove it. Blackmailing someone with a still webcam image of them engaging in an act would be a lot more effective than with an SMS text description. This is a big deal.
I think that this leak will have the biggest effect. It bothered me enough that I emailed the entire college of computing at my university (I am a junior faculty member) to argue for setting ethical boundaries for big data projects, but, alas, I doubt that I will get a response.
Some insider, the next snowden, should leak the database to the internet. When crying children run to their parents, saying that some posted nude pictures of them, I think, this would an effective wake up call.
