Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian Looks At Hacking Team's Client List, Internal Communications
There are lots of small but interesting news bits to take from the data dump made available by Wikileaks of internal documents from the Italian security firm Hacking Team, such as that a police unit investigating major crimes in Florida, according to some of the leaked emails, was interested in purchasing some of the company's surveillance technology. The Guardian has taken a longer look at the company's business and tactics, and outlines many of their actual and potential clients, in particular their government customers, and skewers Hacking Team's claims "that it does not sell to repressive regimes."
Shades of Blue Coat.
Shades of Blue Coat.
which do not pay.
Every time there is a discussion of information obtained through criminal means like this, I'm uneasy and feel sort of like a voyeur. My unhealthy inner sense of ethics becomes confused... If/when the actual perpetrators of the hack are identified and caught, they will be prosecuted — so why is it acceptable for Guardian to profit from their crime without even a condemnation? Their competitors (and ideological foes) News Corp got into serious trouble over phone-hacking — how is this different?
Some secrets — most, in fact — are legitimately secret. Maybe, if there was evidence of actual crimes in there — but the mere fact, that police are interested in surveillance tech? Please... There is just no "there" there.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You can be 100% sure that any "investigations" in Florida will not be directed at learning how Jeb Bush rigged the elections in Florida in 2000 to help his brother become President.
Web search for: Greg Palast Florida 2000
LINK
It's 15 years ago..let it go man, just let it go. You've had your guy in the white house for how long now?
Is that how primitive your thinking is? That it's about teams? What are you, 16 years old?
Anyone including Republicans who break the LAW on a massive scale belong in prison, not in the white house.
With the prevalence of systems being broken into by companies, law enforcement, automated systems, etc... Couldn't a person rightfully claim that whatever is on their computer could have been put there by someone else? If 10,000 people had a key to my house, I don't think I could claim that I have full control over it, why couldn't a criminal defendant claim the same thing? I think it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone else may have full control over your computer.
Did you even read the article you linked? A logical mind would conclude that the article discusses both Democratic and Republican issues. And please tell me where it says that Jeb Bush rigged the election?
A few years back someone successfully defending a child pornography related charge because malware on their PC created sufficient doubt regarding the provenance of the images.
I think it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone else may have full control over your computer.
I don't think that's the case. However, forensic analysis of the computer and discovery of actual malware (rather than the strong likelihood of it) probably should suffice to create reasonable doubt.
Of course, if the evidence is an email from you to the terrorist group, or a video of you raping the victim, or account details of multiple offshore accounts in your name, you're going to struggle to claim that the malware did it.
Hmm. Off to write malware that opens offshore bank accounts..
Almost half a terabyte of private documents were posted on its twitter feed by an anonymous hacker
In my days, we had to tweet obfuscated links to stuff because twitter "didn't scale". But now: 0.5 TB / 140 B = 3.57 billion tweets!
The initials RCS are, of course, the initials of a Hacking Team product, Remote Control System, but are also commonly used in software code for the term (WHAT?)
In my days, that would term would have been encoded with the initials WTF.