Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Is Banning Apple Watch From Cabinet Meetings Over Russian Hacking Fears (techweekeurope.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on from the internet-of-things dept.

Mickeycaskill quotes a report from TechWeekEurope UK: Ministers have been forbidden to wear the Apple Watch during cabinet meetings due to the risk they could be hacked by Russian agents, according to a report. Prime minister Theresa May imposed the new rules following several high-profile hacks that have been blamed on Russia. Several cabinet ministers previously wore the Apple Watch, including former Justice Secretary Michael Gove. Mobile phones have already been banned due to similar concerns. Politically motivated hackers have caused disruption in several recent incidents, including the hack of the Democratic National Committee, which resulted in the release of a large cache of internal emails. One of the paper's sources said: "The Russians are trying to hack everything."

57 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if Russia can hack into those meetings that would already imply that Apple could hack into those meetings but some how Apple being able to hack in, is OK but Russia is a no no. Could that be because Russia is having a fun time publishing the results of the hacks, whilst Apple keeps them secret and buys off the corrupt politicians they discover.

    Any and all of the information, that can be hacked off those system by government agencies from any where in the world, obviously can be well and truly 'hacked' (hacked not quite the accurate word to reflect the purposeful design functions of that software), by the supplying corporation.

    Take the stupid of politicians wanting to keep secrets by using public email accounts, seriously how could any one be that stupid, unless they had information from the corporation that their secrets would be kept, well, as long as they continued to accept money and toed the line.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I doubt that anyone can actually hack into those meetings. Phones are already banned, they are just extending the ban to all smart watches for obvious reasons. I imagine that most other countries do the same thing. This isn't really surprising or a story.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Paranoid much!! I'm not allowed to take a phone/camera into testing facilities, server rooms etc to stop accidental/deliberate leakage of customer data. This seems to me like an obvious step any government with half a brain between them would take to secure meetings such as this. No need to invoke the OTT 'authoritarian/dictator' rhetoric. Get real

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    3. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that there is actually a first post, that doesn't say 'frosty piss' that is modded interesting and is by someone with an account.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by gdr · · Score: 2

      She's a dictator because she wasn't elected, and she's a dictator because she's pursuing a set of policies for which there is no democratic mandate whatsoever.

      May was elected by the Conservative MPs who in turn were elected by the people. That's how our parliamentary democracy works. You might as well call the President of the US a dictator because they are elected by the Electoral College rather than by the people directly.

      It's not true that May is forcing through policies without a mandate, parliament will have to vote on any new legislation. It is true that Brexit was not in the Conservative manifesto, but holding a vote on Brexit and enacting the will of the people was. There is a clear mandate here, and not for "Brexit in name only" that the Remainers want (i.e. no end to free movement, remain subject to rulings of the ECJ, etc).

      Also according to the latest opinion poll the Conservatives have a 17 point lead over Labour at the moment and would most likely at least triple their majority in the HoC if there was an early election.

      In summary: you lost the referendum, May is here to stay whether you have an election or not, get over it.

    5. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by ockegheim · · Score: 1

      In contrast, here in Australia, a smart man replaced an idiot. Unfortunately the smart man is cowardly and unable to stand up to the idiot’s colleagues, so despite much hope in the electorate (the not-nutcase-right part of it anyway), the government is basically the same but with a better-looking prime minister who doesn’t eat raw onions.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    6. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Xest · · Score: 1

      "May was elected by the Conservative MPs who in turn were elected by the people."

      Yes, on a specific manifesto, which May has ripped up. I don't think you understand how our democracy works.

      "It's not true that May is forcing through policies without a mandate, parliament will have to vote on any new legislation. It is true that Brexit was not in the Conservative manifesto, but holding a vote on Brexit and enacting the will of the people was. There is a clear mandate here, and not for "Brexit in name only" that the Remainers want (i.e. no end to free movement, remain subject to rulings of the ECJ, etc). "

      I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the change in economic direction, I'm talking about the return of things like grammar schools. These things have nothing to do with Brexit, though on Brexit itself there was indeed a mandate to leave the EU, but what form that takes isn't a given from the referendum result no matter how much you want to pretend it was, even hard-right folks like Daniel Hannan only wanted an increase in sovereignty (not a decrease in immigration) so the idea that there was a > 50% majority for certain specifics beyond leaving the EU is complete nonsense - you'd only need a swing of 1.8% of voters who voted leave purely for sovereignty reasons for their not to be a majority on an aspect such as immigration. I suspect the fact that you're suggesting there was a mandate for that even though there clearly wasn't is merely a function of the fact you presumably agree with Theresa May's dictat - that doesn't make it democratic though no matter how much you may wish to claim it does. It's not like there was an overwhelming enough majority to claim that some extreme hard-right interpretation is justified as you're implying, to suggest otherwise is to simply spin a lie.

      "In summary: you lost the referendum, May is here to stay whether you have an election or not, get over it."

      I did? That would be news to most people I suspect. I don't care if she's here to stay, that's not the problem (I don't want Corbyn, I think he's a complete idiot, he can't even manage his 2 metre square front garden, let alone a country) - if the people reelect her on her new manifesto that's great, because at least she's told us what that manifesto is and we've made a concious decision as a country to back it. Right now however, the lack of general election means she has no mandate to push through her entirely secretive manifesto where random policies pop up that no one has given her a mandate for such as grammar schools, foreign worker lists, increased public spending and a slow down in debt reduction and so on and so forth.

      I don't really give a shit who is in, I don't really give a shit what they do, as long as they have a democratic mandate to do it, and are transparent about it. May has options - she can be transparent, she can continue to pursue the 2015 election manifesto with Brexit obviously overruling anything where there is conflict due to having a newer mandate, and that would be fine. What she can't do is continue to pursue this secretive set of policies that fly in the face of what her party was elected on without a general election unless she (and her supporters such as yourself) is content accepting that she's merely acting as a dictator pursuing a set of policies that have no democratic mandate right now (beyond merely pulling us out of the EU - she can trigger article 50 without a vote fine IMO because that is indeed what people voted for).

    7. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      This is an issue that I think we're going to have to address in the UK now. If you favour stronger political accountability and more democratic power then leaving the EU does remove one large layer of indirectly appointed authority that has probably been more influential in practice than the directed elected authority that came with it. I imagine that was part of the motivation for a lot of the Leave voters, even if the media do love to talk about immigration and racism a lot more. But leaving the EU is surely only a first step if that's your goal, and it will inevitably put greater emphasis on the accountability and transparency of our own national government.

      Now that it's all going to be down to us, it could reignite the campaigns to reform our own national system of government as well. I wonder whether there will be renewed pressure on how our MPs are elected, because the last general election was even more disproportionate than usual in its popular-vote-to-MPs conversion. There's certainly a solid democratic argument for revisiting how the government is then formed: the coronation of a new PM and with them effectively a new government has happened twice in three Parliaments, and the middle one was a coalition whose policies were hammered out behind closed doors, so long gone are the days when the Prime Minister was merely a "first among equals" acknowledged by MPs by mutual consent and when voters were primarily choosing a constituency MP at general elections. Then we have the House of Lords, which has long been controversial.

      On the one hand, I'm optimistic that whatever the pros and cons of Brexit itself, the current interest in how we are governed might lead to reviewing some of the more debatable aspects of our national system. On the other hand, the extremely controversial nature of Brexit may push some people the other way, favouring the devil they know rather than risking an uncertain future controlled by someone else. Apparently we have invoked the old saying about living in interesting times...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      While you may be correct according to the way our system is set up, the objection a lot of people have been raising is more about whether that system is in any meaningful sense democratic at this point.

      May was elected by the Conservative MPs who in turn were elected by the people.

      May wasn't elected by Conservative MPs, she was appointed after everyone else dropped out of the race due to the political infighting within her party. No-one actually voted for her to be PM at any point.

      Those Conservative MPs were indeed elected by the people, but only by the people who voted Conservative in the constituencies where a Conservative MP won. That is actually a rather small proportion of the overall population.

      When you're several degrees of separation from the general population actually voting directly to show support for you, I think it's a stretch to claim you have a democratic mandate, even if there's no suggestion that anyone broke any law or that the result isn't what our current system properly determined.

      You might as well call the President of the US a dictator because they are elected by the Electoral College rather than by the people directly.

      And on the rare occasions when the person who becomes POTUS did not win a majority of the popular vote, people do criticise the Electoral College for much the same reasons. But that is relatively rare and the vote is directly for who should become President, which makes it a very different situation on at least two counts to how the British Prime Minister is selected.

      It's not true that May is forcing through policies without a mandate, parliament will have to vote on any new legislation.

      True, but there is a great deal of power available to the executive officers of a government even without new primary legislation to support them, and in practice our "executive branch" is controlled by the PM.

      May is here to stay whether you have an election or not, get over it.

      That is almost certainly true, but at the same time it is a damning indictment both of the incompetence of our current official opposition and of our system of government itself.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I like her revised manifesto rather more than the one the Conservatives were voted in on, but fundamentally, you're almost right.

      Parliamentary checks and balances will mitigate much of it, the Civil Service will sabotage much of it and the SNP will vote against all of it, so on the whole she probably can't do as much damage as the person she's replaced anyway.

    10. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yes, on a specific manifesto, which May has ripped up. I don't think you understand how our democracy works.

      Sadly I'm not sure you do either. You don't vote for a manifesto, you vote for an individual to represent you in parliament.

      My MP is an utter cunt but he still (badly) represents me in parliament. I didn't vote for him or his manifesto. The people that did vote for him to represent him are still represented by him.

      Shit, he didn't agree with the manifesto when he ran for parliament himself.

    11. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Sadly I'm not sure you do either. You don't vote for a manifesto, you vote for an individual to represent you in parliament."

      Unless you're voting for an independent, then MPs in the UK sign up to their party manifestos and agree to back them. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

    12. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Given the manifesto has no standing in law, no, you do not vote for the manifesto. You vote for your MP.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

    13. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Xest · · Score: 1

      If MPs were all truly independent and you weren't voting based on party manifesto then we wouldn't have a Prime Minister, a cabinet, and party whips. The manifesto is the document that drives party policy from the top down and hence on what politicians are whipped into voting for, which they do in the vast majority of cases with the fringe cases being only those that were either typically not in manifestos (i.e. declarations of war ala Syria) or made such a hash up of by cabinet and PM that MPs distance themselves from and u-turn. The party system is a fundamental piece of our system of government and the manifestos is the key document on which parties are elected. The big parties with the resources to do so (i.e. Labour, and the Conservatives) typically even fund delivery of a copy of their manifestos or at least a summary through people's doors in a localised format with their local MPs on with their local MP's backing.

      You're absolutely right that they have no legal standing, but then, neither does the Brexit vote - it was merely advisory and can be ignored by parliament. Rightly however there'd be hell to pay if they decided not to listen to the will of the people on it though, party manifestos are no different and that's why politicians are so often pinned to them - they're the very document that tells you what to expect if you vote for this candidate and his party wins.

    14. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Clegg and the Lib Dems deviated in a couple of key areas from their manifesto and became a marginal part of the subsequent parliament as a result.

      May is risking the same response from the electorate. Her choice, but doesn't make her a dictator.

    15. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by gdr · · Score: 1

      Right now however, the lack of general election means she has no mandate to push through her entirely secretive manifesto where random policies pop up that no one has given her a mandate for such as grammar schools, foreign worker lists, increased public spending and a slow down in debt reduction and so on and so forth.

      It is too restrictive to require the government to only implement policies in their manifesto as this would restrict the government from reacting to changing circumstances. Almost all the policy changes you mention are a reaction to the (hopefully short-term) uncertainty caused by Brexit. The policy on grammar schools was not mentioned in the last Conservative manifesto but was not ruled out by it either. It would not be practical to restrict government to only enact policies that were in their manifesto. Calling May a dictator is absurd.

      I think your argument that the 52% who voted for Brexit don't agree on what form of Brexit they want ignores the fact that the Remain side were if anything more divided on their vision of what Remain would mean. Labour supporters would see the EU as a way of expanding workers rights whereas Conservative supporters would see it as a vote for expanding free trade. The opinion polls consistently ranked sovereignty and immigration as the top two reasons people voted for Brexit.

    16. Re:Russia Playing Catch Up To Corporations by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Conservatives have a working majority. They won't be immune to civil service sabotage but it doesn't matter how anyone else votes; they only lose if their own MPs rebel.

  2. Hand-waving hypocrites. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    "The Russians are trying to hack everything."

    Like various agencies un the US and UK aren't? Ubiquitous illegal spying on their own citizens - it's getting hard to tell the difference between the old USSR and today's western governments.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by swalve · · Score: 1

      A lot fewer gulags and bread lines.

    2. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by matbury · · Score: 1

      Let me translate that for you:

      CIA/Police black site = gulag

      In 2011, 16.7 million children were living in food insecure households in the USA = bread lines

    3. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Document for us a single 'gulag' as you term it, within the continental United States.

      Don't cite a conspiracy theory organization. Give us a real location that we can pull up with Google Maps.

    4. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Sorry that highly questionable claim about children in "food insecure households" even if true does not equal bread lines. Which were daily lines in the soviet union to obtain basic food stuffs. Even when adequate supplies existed the process and procedures to obtain the food items were inefficient and time consuming.

      and as to gulags
      Gulag: NOUN
                  1.a system of labor camps maintained in the former Soviet Union from 1930 to 1955 in which many people died.
      (gulag)
      a camp in the Gulag system, or any political labor camp.

      A gulag is a forced labor prison camp for political dissidents, where prisoners are often worked to death. Please cite one location of such in the US. An actual labor camp for political dissidents, not a police detention/interrogation facility as suggested by AC (as illegal as that facility may be it's not a gulag).

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      An "interrogation facility" that does't keep records of who's in it, that relatives can't find them, that the occupants have been "disappeared" without a court order, and, as you yourself admit, employs forced labor, is a gulag. Next you'll be saying gitmo is just an "enhanced interrogation facility", instead of what it is - illegal imprisonment and torture that breeds more terrorists.

      Google defines a gulag as a forced labor camp. Nothing more is needed to satisfy the criteria.

      And with 16.7 million kids (and who knows how many adults) with insecure food sources, the line-ups a food banks certainly meet the definition of "bread lines."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Sorry that highly questionable claim about children in "food insecure households" even if true does not equal bread lines. Which were daily lines in the soviet union to obtain basic food stuffs. Even when adequate supplies existed the process and procedures to obtain the food items were inefficient and time consuming.

      Go to your local food banks and you'll see the bread lines. Some distribute 1 or 2 days a week, some daily. Same as soup kitchens operate either a few days a week or daily. All depends on the resources available. Seniors are the most consistent users of food banks. And things have gotten worse since the study, which was done in 2010. Their food banks distributed more than 4 billion meals . And that doesn't count the food banks and soup kitchens that operate independently of Feed America. 46 million Americans depend on food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens.

      This is common knowledge. Only someone who is willfully ignorant or is living in a bubble world doesn't know this. It's mentioned often on daytime TV, it's in the news (print, television, radio, internet). Go visit a food bank. There's one in almost every community in all 50 states.

      Of if you're feeling lazy, just google for it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Why have secrets? Conduct your affairs in an open and transparent way, and you won't have these problems. Citizens have the right to know what government policies are, and how they came about. That other countries would also know is a bonus - they'd know to what extent you could be trusted. They would also know what bones of contention could be addressed by negotiations instead of guessing games. We're only one wrong guess from Armageddon.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by swalve · · Score: 1

      Give me an address in Chicago where I can document these lines.

    9. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Still nothing like bread lines in the context it was presented. i.e. the prevalent bread lines of the Soviet Union, where everyone had to endure such lines just to obtain their basic staples, well everyone but the political elite. Poor people going to a food bank is not bread lines.

      Bread lines are due to a general unavailability or scarceness of food, not due to a lack of funds by those needing to buy such food.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    10. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You crippled? Just do a search for food banks. Fucking moron.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Hand-waving hypocrites. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Bull crap. Don't you DARE try to move the goal posts. There are bread lines and food lines in every state.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  3. Re: The Big Lie by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

    > This approach to propaganda was spelled out explicitly by Adolf Hitler in his book "Mein Kampf."

    Who went on to use it with great success in his wildly popular Third Reich, convincing an entire nation of otherwise well-meaning Germans to take part in, or look away from, the extermination of an entire race.

  4. Just an excuse. by LTIfox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually their primary concern is with NSA. Russian hacking is a good excuse for the ban: no need to explain to Americans why they don't trust them.

    1. Re:Just an excuse. by quenda · · Score: 1

      Is there actually any evidence (e.g. Snowden) of the US conducting SIGINT against the UK in violation of the five-eyes agreement?
      I thought GCHQ did it for the NSA in Britain.

      Surely its just common sense for smartphones etc to be excluded from cabinet meetings.

    2. Re:Just an excuse. by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      ... Since these organizations are not allowed to act on domestically...

      What makes you think that?The USA may have a lot of laws that the remaining 98% of humanity could have too but it also has a whole load that nobody else has or misses.

      Your rules (supposedly) stopping the CIA spying domestically are unusual in your, US only, laws. They are actually benefit the people and not the government or big money. At least they would be if we could believe that they were followed and that we haven't had a lot of revelations to the contrary.

      Anyway, other countries don't even have the theoretical benefit of executive order 12333.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  5. Look, over there! by BlackSabbath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect, given PM May's well-documented willingness to trample on the privacy rights of her citizens, that the ban has more to do with prevention of any leaks a la Snowden. What is said in cabinet, stays in cabinet.

    I'm reminded of that famous quote by Otto von Bismarck, "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." We don't want the proles learning what we really think of them.

  6. Banning devices with a mic or camera is news?? by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    It not like anything with a mic or camera has not been banned from any sensitive meeting since they were invented. Why would any cell phone be allow in a sensitive meeting for that matter? While were are on the topic, seems like any computer's mic or camera should be physically disabled from computers in classified areas. Or is facetime with your kittens at home that critical to national security?

    1. Re:Banning devices with a mic or camera is news?? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "Why would any cell phone be allow in a sensitive meeting for that matter?" so they can be tracked?
      "VICE News Investigation Finds Signs of Secret Phone Surveillance Across London" (January 15, 2016)
      https://news.vice.com/article/...
      "... were found at several locations in the British capital, including UK parliament, a peaceful anti-austerity protest, and the Ecuadorian embassy. "

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Our dystopia by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    Up to last year, the evil empire using its big bad hackers was China. Now, the enemy du jour is Russia. It looks like during our last hate week, we went from being at war with Eurasia, to being at war with Eastasia.

    1. Re:Our dystopia by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      But we've always been at war with Eastasia...

    2. Re:Our dystopia by matbury · · Score: 2

      Do you mean East Anglia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :P

    3. Re:Our dystopia by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The Democrats, and their big corporate donors, don't have major business stakes with companies in Russia. It's at least in part that simple.

  8. 2/10 propaganda by Severus+Snape · · Score: 1

    Members of the cabinets are high profiles for targeted hacking - nation states looking for leverage, criminals looking to make a buck, hell even script kiddies for the 'lulz'. Our governments are well aware of the security shortcomings in our communications technology, proven by hoarding of security vulnerabilities rather than fixing them, don't forget the outrageous level of surveillance and spying. So, I'm begging the question, why would phones even be allowed in such a meeting?

    Tldr: all the phones are turned off and put in a box.

  9. *facepalm* by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    You know, someone is going to need to take one for the team, and go "educate" our leaders about all things dealing with electricity. I say someone, because whenever we get down to the discussion of whom, it's always somebody else...

  10. Re:The Big Lie by swalve · · Score: 1

    It is state sponsored spying all the way down.

  11. The Bear is Punctual . by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Three UK politicians in jail get to talking.
    "I am here because I always got to parliament five minutes late, and they charged me with expenses fraud," says the first.
    "I am here because I kept getting to parliament five minutes early, and they charged me with spying for Russia," says the second.
    "I am here because I got to parliament on time every day," says the third, "and they charged me with owning an Apple watch."

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. What about Windows computers? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    If they are concerned about their systems being penetrated, they should focus on moving everything away from the clumsy grasp of Microsoft programmers.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:What about Windows computers? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Windows lets MI5 and the GCHQ keep up with workplace gossip and gives insight into what trusted staff are doing before they post to social media.
      A thought or joke typed, then deleted. Keylogging is integral to good 5 eye staff management.
      That joy that PRISM like access gives over an entire nation is not worth fixing for digital security.
      As a sheltered workshop the constant support calls keeps a lot of people working and happy fixing MS things everyday, all day.
      Its strange that Apple is now the talking point been made ever so public but given the decryption demands from the USA?
      Apple may have to hand over decryption in other global markets as part of ongoing UK telco access?
      To catch the evil digital spies on the consumer networks that can stay so well hidden unless total decryption is arranged?
      Failed in legislation try hearsay.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Bears in a watch? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    What does MI5 and the GCHQ know about how the bespoke Apple network that all other hackers do not?
    Does Apple have some unique global network of its very own that all data can be sent and extracted without GCHQ discovery?
    If inflight collecting for the US and UK was no issue, how can hacking a consumer grade US watch go undetected?
    Glenn Greenwald Says NSA, GCHQ Dismayed They Don't Have Access To In-Flight Internet Communication
    https://www.techdirt.com/artic... (Dec 30th 2013)
    "The very idea that human beings can communicate for even a few moments without their ability to monitor is intolerable."
    Why did the UK not play on this ability and set up scripted meetings with the wide open Apple products left on?
    Re "So, I'm begging the question, why would phones even be allowed in such a meeting?"
    MI6 could have induced a new generation of "Operation Mincemeat" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... bouncing around consumer grade Apple accounts over the time Apple watches has fashion status.
    Instead the UK goes full public for a few days sock puppet tech media repeating "Russia" did it and its magic Bear code in a watch? Tell the world they know who is looking and how and on what platform and how such action has been discovered and stopped?
    The fun MI6 could have had with reading back fake projects, plans and fake operations.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. Pot meet kettle by dargaud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, now that the pot has met the kettle, can those goons finally get their security agencies to actually do defence instead of offence ? By that I mean get the NSA, GCHC, etc to find vulnerabilities, yes, but actually use their clout to FORCE vendors to fix them (jailtime for root/root accounts on routers ?). And get ISPs to shut down the bots running on their networks. And shut down the spammers and malware peddlers that can't be that hard to find. It's for everyone's benefit, including those cabinet ministers who fear their watch...

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  15. Re: which race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it's not a stain on my conscience. i wasn't there.

  16. What stops them after the meeting? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    What is said in cabinet, stays in cabinet.

    No it won't if their phone and/or watch has been hacked. This is an utterly stupid rule because if a minister's phone will really listen in to all s/he says then the moment s/he leaves cabinet and starts talking with his civil servants and MP colleagues to put what was discussed in place then whomever hacked the phone will hear the plans then. At best this puts a tiny extra hurdle in the way.

    I suspect that what they are far more worried about is that someone in cabinet will record their discussions and leak it to the press, or worse the House of Commons. With all the Brexit negotiation preparations ramping up there are a lot of concerned MPs wanting to know details given all the talk of a 'hard' Brexit and a leak of something like that could be catastrophic for the government.

  17. Re:The Big Lie by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    What's really unsettling is all the pro-Trump posts I've been seeing here and other places parroting Putin's line on EU/Baltics/Ukraine/Syria.

    And I've yet to see a single pro-Trump voice speak up to disavow it. Not a one.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  18. Re: which race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, my great-grandfather died at Auschwitz.

    He fell out of his watch-tower...

  19. Re:The Big Lie by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    "The Russians are trying to hack everything." No evidence, but you sure hear it a lot, so it seems true.

    No, there's plenty of evidence. There's also plenty of evidence that the USA, UK, China, and so on, are trying to hack everything. What do you think the NSA, GCHQ, and friends do all day?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  20. Michael Gove by UberVegeta · · Score: 4, Informative

    Several cabinet ministers previously wore the Apple Watch, including former Justice Secretary Michael Gove.

    This ought to be enough to ensure no British politician ever wears an Apple Watch ever again.

    For our friends around the world who aren't aware, Michael Gove has the unique distinction of pissing off literally everybody during the Brexit referendum. He told a bunch of lies while campaigning to leave, while supporting Boris Johnson as a potential future Prime Minister. After the vote he then stabbed Boris Johnson in the back by declaring his own intent to run for leadership which was never going to win popular support, even from Brexiteers. Add in that he profoundly unpopular in education and justice (he was minister for both) and you have an individual who makes a worrying ambassador for your brand.

    You'd be better off with a celebrity endorsement from Ebola.

    --
    I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
  21. Re:The Big Lie by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    So who ate all the turtles?

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  22. Re:GCHQ spies for NSA by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    We also have the right to know how policies are reached. Secret cabinet meetings are bs. If anything, they should be the most transparent of all. No more saying one thing in public and another in private. Simple enough to enforce, too. Make any secret discussions a conspiracy against the national interests, and jail the lying bastards.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  23. Attribution is Geopolitical... and dumb by bigpat · · Score: 1

    You could have *probably* named 5 or 6 different major state and non-state players in the cyber espionage/hacking business that are of equal or greater concern, but Russia is the convenient target these days.

    Seems the cold war is back on, but to me it would be far better to maintain somewhat better relations with Russia as a hedge of China and Saudi(Sunni Islamist) influence in world affairs. Even the EU and India should be considered as a potential competitors that should be worked with as friends, while understanding that we may have divergent global interests in the future.

    Pushing Russia further towards China, Iran and others does nothing other than set up stronger anti-American alliances just as our technological military edge further erodes and we face larger militaries with increasingly sophisticated weapons and communications and backed by large industrial capacity.

    We are so interconnected and with larger and larger populations we are more vulnerable to major disruptions that nobody should be looking to pick a fight amongst the larger countries. Of course nobody should be looking to pick a fight at all between countries, but especially strong is the responsibility to avoid further acrimony among the major and even the regional powers.