Slashdot Mirror


How The FBI Easily Retrieved Michael Cohen's Data From Both Apple and Google (cnn.com)

Court documents unsealed Tuesday showed just how much information America's FBI was able to gather on Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen -- from both Google and Apple products. An anonymous reader quotes CNN: Notably, the FBI made use of Cohen's use of Touch ID and Face ID on his Apple devices, which allow users to quickly log into iPhones and computers by scanning their face or fingerprint rather than typing in a password... But that gives law enforcement an additional means to access those devices. In one warrant application for Cohen, an FBI agent requested authorization "to press the fingers (including thumbs) of Cohen to the Touch ID sensors of the Subject Devices, or hold the Subject Devices in front of Cohen's face, for the purpose of attempting to unlock the Subject Devices via Touch ID or Face ID...."

One warrant requested not simply access to three of Cohen's Gmail accounts, as well as other email accounts, but also some of the wide array of information Google keeps for its users by default, including search history, web cookies associated with an account, device information, and a host of other metadata categories. One affidavit describes how the FBI narrowed down Cohen's temporary location at the Loews Regency Hotel in New York through his cell phone location data. Agents then used a "triggerfish" -- a reference to a stingray, or IMSI catcher, a suitcase-sized device that mimics a cell tower to convince a cell phone to connect and reveal its location...

Prosecutors also made use of a new law that Trump recently signed. Investigators in the Southern District of New York compelled Google to turn over some documents on Cohen, but the tech giant initially "declined to produce data that it stored on computer servers located outside of the United States," according to an affidavit submitted to the court by an FBI agent working on Cohen's case. Weeks later, Trump signed the CLOUD Act into law, which gave US law enforcement more legal pathways to pursue data stories overseas.... In an April 2018 affidavit, the FBI agent argued that "providers are required to disclose data even if it is stored abroad" under the new law. The judge approved the new search warrant later that day, giving investigators access to additional information from Google, including Cohen's emails, attachments, address book and files stored on Google Drive.

One technology law expert told CNN that police now seek access to more and more information.

"I think any of the electronic debris that people leave online on these services is all potentially subject to being used against you."

153 comments

  1. Re:As an American watching Trump dying in prison.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize he isn't stuck in Mar-a-lago, right?

    Yikes.

  2. Re:President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Sealed Indictment :An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested or has been notified by police.

    Even Fox News agrees with me : Fox News’ Chris Wallace: Rudy Giuliani ‘Awfully Optimistic’ To Think Mueller Probe Is Over
    The attorney’s conclusion that the special counsel’s report is good news for President Trump is premature, the Fox News host warned.

    Bring lube, traitor, when they come for you with the shiny bracelets. Keep mentioning Hillary when you go to prison, try for a crazy defense. Keep trying to fuck your ugly daughter meanwhile I guess.

    Before they take you off to die in prison a traitor.

  3. Be secure in your papers by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Understand what is now a legal search and seizures.
    How to use your OS to ensure your digital "papers" stay secure from unreasonable search attempts.
    When and how your rights stay protected.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Be secure in your papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron.

    2. Re: Be secure in your papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understand the concept of new laws and global jurisdiction of every investigative authority that is not shy to abuse its power.

      You lost.

    3. Re: Be secure in your papers by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is out in the open AC.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re: Be secure in your papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that what the sides of the Time cube are called?

    5. Re:Be secure in your papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FMRI

    6. Re:Be secure in your papers by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Can't be done and here's why:

      The technology you use shares familial DNA with every other goddam technology on the planet. It's a level playing field.

      Look: As for weapons, some people are allowed to own jet fighters, aircraft carriers and grenades. You don't get those.

      As for technology, let's look to CaptainDork's Corollary: "For every motherfucker out there with a computer, there's another mother fucker out there with a computer."

      The shit the government (or businesses) use to secure their papers is precisely the same as yours.

      It's a level playing field.

      How insane is that?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Be secure in your papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will just use strong encryption...

  4. Re:As an American watching Trump dying in prison.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sealed Indictment :An indictment can be sealed so that it stays non-public until it is unsealed. This can be done for a number of reasons. It may be unsealed, for example, once the named person is arrested or has been notified by police.

    Even Fox News agrees with me : Fox News’ Chris Wallace: Rudy Giuliani ‘Awfully Optimistic’ To Think Mueller Probe Is Over
    The attorney’s conclusion that the special counsel’s report is good news for President Trump is premature, the Fox News host warned.

    Bring lube, traitor, when they come for you with the shiny bracelets. Keep mentioning Hillary when you go to prison, try for a crazy defense. Keep trying to fuck your ugly daughter meanwhile I guess.

    Before they take you off to die in prison a traitor.

    He's not going to be buried under Mar a Lago, lol.

  5. This is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    End to end crypto is not breakable. Rubber hose up the nose is what done it.

  6. who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is this someone I should know?

    1. Re:who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Formerly the official pimp of the US president.

    2. Re: who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cohen? He just believed he was the pimp. He is one of those guys that thinks if you say something enough times other people will believe it.

    3. Re: who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we know for sure that he paid at least one whore on behalf of Don the cuckold, so you may be a bit in the wrong here. But then, you have a job to do, right, shill?

    4. Re:who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who?

      And there, my friends, is exactly what is wrong with the US government, politics in general, and civilization as a whole. The average person is unaware of the crimes our "leaders" are embroiled-in. Michael Cohen has been on every News program, broadcast free and for free, for the last three years yet we have citizens of voting age who have never watched The Corbert Report.

  7. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conspiracy theory. May keep US liebruls or trumpttards busy years after it was proven baseless.

  8. Extraterritoriality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what country hosted the servers (owned by foreign subsidiary of Google) which they raided with only a US, not foreign warrant?
    I mean, I'm pretty sure Google has subsidiary in whatever country they actually have servers which is the formal direct operator,
    and normal countries should have some sort of privacy laws restricting companies from just turning data over to US government.

    1. Re:Extraterritoriality by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably Ireland, they have a European HQ located there, but not sure if they have a server farm there too.

      Also, it's probably not very relevant where the data is actually stored these days, it's most likely replicated and backed up in several countries. Most global companies now use off-site backups and replicate their data in geographically separate locations, with data centers in many countries spread throughout the world. This gives them more redundancy and a better shot at handling an international disaster; a given country would likely be unaffected while another is having a disaster like a tidal wave or whatever.

          The whole point of the new law was to deal with exactly this sort of situation, where the local laws or agencies of other countries are either not enforceable or somehow otherwise are an impediment to them getting legal access to the data. The other country really doesn't have any chance to say anything in the matter, if they're even aware of it. If Google or whoever refuses the request, they would no doubt prosecute them as though they had denied law enforcement's access to the data just the same as if it was located in the U.S.

      Not saying it's right or wrong. Personally, I'm not a fan of laws that give Government expanded powers to nose into people's lives, either real or online, but I'm not a fan of crime, obviously. If nothing else, this was expected. Many of our laws need to be updated to be meaningful and reflect the new digital reality we live in - the legal system is lagging behind reality in many ways by anywhere from 5-10 years to about 50.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  9. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound defensive! Lol, we all were laughing at you the entire time and now you flail like a downs kid in a whirlpool lmao

  10. Re: So much data and no indictments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spam: repeatedly posting the same stupid crap in the hope that something stupid repeated 100 times will happen.

  11. Re: As an American watching Trump dying in prison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be the Republicans are all faggots dying in jail guy.

    It really would be better for your soul if you just acknowledged you wasted 2 years of your life trolling thousands of posts which were all lies you swallowed hook line and sinker and just killed yourself already.

    Oh, and btw... LMAO! MAGA! Trump 2020! Hillary for prison! NO INDCITMENTS! (Sealed or otherwise...NONE!)

    I am going to head back to the NYT comments section to wallow in the conspiracy theory, agony, and tears.

    Oh yes, those delicious Marxist tears! So yummy!

    The winning just never stops (unless you are Marxist scum).

  12. Instead of a "Privacy Policy" by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Just put up a Miranda Warning. Makes more sense

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Instead of a "Privacy Policy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... aaahhhaaa. that was good..

    2. Re: Instead of a "Privacy Policy" by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "You have no rights. You lose. All your data are belong to us. This is a no free speech zone. Everything you have ever said can and will be used against you. You are presumed guilty, but at our whim you may (or may not) be given a chance to prove your innocence, if you have enough money. Bend over. Fuck you, pleb, that's why.

      Thank you for your compliance."

    3. Re: Instead of a "Privacy Policy" by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This is true and it's voluntary.

      Those of us who read the ToS fully appreciate that it's a binding contract whereby the user of a product waives all rights and, in fact, agrees to defend the product if it is involved in litigation.

      No one is usurping rights -- people are giving away rights.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re: Instead of a "Privacy Policy" by astrofurter · · Score: 2

      Oh c'mon, brohamley - does the bootleather taste _that_ good?

      Everybody and his brother knows these leonine "contacts" are undisguisedly one-sided; always "accepted" without a shed of informed consent, much less meeting of the minds; never even read; imposed as mandatory on simple commerce, utterly out of proportion with the elaborate convolutions of the leonine "contract"; and a general travesty of the Law.

  13. Passwords Still Rule by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With biometric authentication, you are only protected by the 4th amendment. Your finger/face/etc. are akin to a key, and a warrant can compel you to unlock the device with it.

    With a password, it can be argued that divulging it would constitute self-incrimination, which keeps you protected by the 5th amendment as well, even if they get a warrant. Case law is unclear on the matter, at least, with contradictory rulings.

    This is true in the USA at least. UK has a law that mandates divulging passwords, although I don't recall hearing about it being used much.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Tom · · Score: 2

      With a password, it can be argued that divulging it would constitute self-incrimination,

      That's one part. The other part is that the stress of prosecution is well known to cause your memory to go hazy and even top politicians who are used to a lot of stress have a tendency to suddenly not be able to remember important details anymore. How will you, a normal person, remember your password under such circumstances?

      "I don't remember." is the get-out-of-jail-card you only have if the thing they need is something that is in your memory.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      I think this may have changed recently. I remember hearing in the last month or two that biometrics are now considered the same as a numeric password, or passphrase. You cannot be compelled to use biometrics anymore, or at least that it has the same legal protections now that a password has.

      Rubber hoses aside, of course. Those still work.

      Not sure if this is state-specific or federal. I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember thinking, "That's cool, now I don't have to turn off the fingerprint reader login on my phone!"

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    3. Re:Passwords Still Rule by tinkerton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a lot of accounts where I don't know the password because they're generated strings I just copy from the password manager. So I cannot access these accounts from the smartphone even if I want to.

      Not all that convenient and not intended. It just sort of happened. Also, what if I'm forced to open my laptop with password manager at the airport. All my passwords are in there!

    4. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can a law requiring divulging passwords possibly be worth anything at all since anyone can simply say "I forgot", some of the times that being actually true. How would such a law work in practice.

    5. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2

      If you say "I forgot", fully expect to stay in prison for "contempt of court" until you remember.

    6. Re:Passwords Still Rule by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the Netherlands, a judge recently ruled that unlocking a phone with a fingerprint or holding it up to a suspect's face does not constitute self-incrimination. Which actually makes sense if you look at the law (not sure how it compares to the 5th amendment): that law does not exist to protect your private data, it exists to ensure that you cannot be punished for not volunteering self-incriminating evidence. Compare this to a safe with a combination lock versus a safe with a key: you cannot be compelled to provide the combination nor the location of the key, but if the cops search you and find the key on you, they are free to open the safe with that.

      There are some legislators who now seek to change the law on the grounds that people not unreasonably expect biometrics to provide the same (legal) protection of private data as passwords do. But that's a matter of privacy rather than self-incrimination.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One reason why all my really important passwords are not in a password manager. Eggs and baskets and all that.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Passwords Still Rule by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Informative

      iPhone users, read this. There are ways to quickly disable the fingerpint scanner and Face ID using the physical buttons on the phone. Easy to do quickly and quietly in case you get arrested. It can also be done through Siri. And Android phones have a similar mechanism I am told.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not reasonable to expect that, only if there are other circumstances which would lead one to believe that you do know the password but just do not disclose.

      Otherwise you are behind a judicially-sponsored life sentence for not divulging a password ; if that's what we want it should be an explicit statute.

    10. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep all my passwords in a password manager, but then again I make backups.

    11. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      The other circumstance is obviously that this is your phone. Refusing to provide a password because you "forgot" it will hardly be an acceptable excuse unless you have a medical condition or something. In which case you won't be using a password anyway.

      you are behind a judicially-sponsored life sentence

      Not me, I'm just pointing out what will happen to you if you try it.

      it should be an explicit statute.

      And it will be if the push comes to shove -- it is already so in the UK, for example. An explicit statute is not something hard to get through a legislature that has supported things like the war on drugs. But contempt will probably do just as well in the meantime.

    12. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      How does a backup stop somebody from stealing your passwords? It doesn't. Tom was talking specifically about people not being able to steal important passwords. I don't use a password manager at all. All of my important passwords are semi-unique 8-22 characters long depending on what its being used for. its surprisingly easy to remember them.

    13. Re:Passwords Still Rule by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      True.

      Face, fingerprint, iris, palm prints, ... these are things you have.

      Passwords and pass codes are things you know.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re:Passwords Still Rule by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Password managers are precisely the same technological base that we all use. It's not a special, hardened, gated community.

      Use LastPass? Update now to protect your passwords (explainer)

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    15. Re:Passwords Still Rule by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Again, the distinction exists, regardless of jurisdiction, between what a person HAS and what a person KNOWS.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    16. Re:Passwords Still Rule by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This happens quite a bit. People do actually forget. They spend time locked up until the courts decide to give up.

      ymmv

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    17. Re:Passwords Still Rule by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      An explicit statute is not something hard to get through a legislature ...

      Brexit

      Sorry. Low-hanging fruit.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    18. Re:Passwords Still Rule by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      There's another solution that's slicker than deer guts on a door knob.

      If you're a developer, you can have two passcodes.

      One will unlock the phone.

      The other will brick it.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    19. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare this to a safe with a combination lock versus a safe with a key: you cannot be compelled to provide the combination nor the location of the key, but if the cops search you and find the key on you, they are free to open the safe with that.

      Meta: there are actually safes available with two locks. You can either install key-key, combo-combo, or combo-key (for two-factor).

      Not as popular, and kind of pricier because of the lower volumes, but neat nonetheless.

    20. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been held in contempt for refusing to give up their PIN.

    21. Re:Passwords Still Rule by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      And enjoy being prosecuted for destruction of evidence if you give them the 2nd code.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    22. Re: Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm the point is YOU type in the password.

    23. Re: Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brexit has already gone through the legislature. It is the full realization of what it means for Brexitannia that is giving its legislature the shakes about the hows of brexit.

    24. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Trogre · · Score: 1

      The really smart ones don't actually brick the phones, they just destroy the account with which you store your sensitive data and appear to log in to a nearly as-new device.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    25. Re:Passwords Still Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meta: if they have the safe, can't they just bust it open?

  14. No real surprises here by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We already knew that, in the US, a person can be compelled to unlock his/her phone if it can be done with a fingerprint or by showing their face.

    If you're really paranoid you need to turn all that off, require a complex passcode to be entered on any of your electronic devices, and be willing to put up with a little inconvenience on a regular basis.

    Personally, I'm not that paranoid - I'm aware that I'm simply not that important of a person.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer a layered approach: both complex passcodes, plus not being a scumbag doing blatantly illegal shit. Personally, I'm exactly that paranoid.

    2. Re: No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. A million times. Seriously, what's so hard about being part of a community and following rules?

    3. Re:No real surprises here by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Long passwords (please, please stop this complexity nonsense. Length > complexity !) are too inconvenient to be used constantly.

      Something that allows me to use my fingerprint if the phone hasn't left my possession but requires a long password if it has been off for a day, etc. would be a nice solution.

      The better solution would be to have "lock fingers" as well as unlock fingers. Let me use some of my fingers to tell the device that I'm not trying to unlock it voluntarily, and it should instead lock down, encrypt everything, turn off the unlock fingers and require the long password to unlock. Then let them guess which finger is which.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re: No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is natural for humans to deviate from the rules, whether written or unwritten, whether harmful or not harmful. Therefore, individuals must protect themselves from other individuals and their outsourced rule-enforcement body, a.k.a, 'the police'.

    5. Re: No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assholes, rule makers, and asshole rule makers?

    6. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already knew that, in the US, a person can be compelled to unlock his/her phone if it can be done with a fingerprint or by showing their face

      FUCK YOU !!

      Unlike China, the United States of America respects Human Rights!

    7. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'm not that paranoid - I'm aware that I'm simply not that important of a person.

      Posting AC to avoid burning mod points.

      It's almost like understanding that phones and teh nternetz are not a secure medium. If you don't store illegal or incriminating shit on an insecure medium, you don't have a problem.

      So peeps that plan on engaging in illegality should remember that storing your illegality on the toobz is like walking down the street with your cock hanging out, and then being surprised that some folks don't like it.

    8. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really paranoid, and I turn all that off. I don't really expect that I'll ever be in that situation, but it would be mildly amusing to have someone compel me to put my finger on a device or show my face to it and nothing happens. Or when they find that my data is never backed up to cloud providers unless it's first encrypted with a key that the cloud provider does not know.

      Does that prevent all data leakage? Of course not, but it does prevent most of what people who don't understand this stuff are vulnerable to.

    9. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're an immigrant child because we put them in cages and hire sex offenders to care for them.

      Or if you look even vaguely Hispanic, in which case you'll be accused of being an illegal immigrant.

      Or if you wear a hijab or turbin, because we think those people are all terrorists so we subject them to unreasonable levels of scrutiny and look the other way when white supremacists harass them endlessly.

      Or if you're an unarmed black teenager, because you look threatening to a squad of armed police officers who will empty their guns into you.

      Or if you're a woman who claims she was raped, because there are a lot of white guys who are afraid of false accusations so they will dox you and harass you for the rest of your life.

      Or if you're poor and need food stamps, welfare or any other assistance. Then you're looked down on and accused of being to lazy to work. ... you know this list never ends, right?

      The United States of America respects Human Rights... as long as you're a white man. Everyone else is going to get fucked over one way or another.

    10. Re:No real surprises here by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      The better solution would be to have "lock fingers" as well as unlock fingers. Let me use some of my fingers to tell the device that I'm not trying to unlock it voluntarily, and it should instead lock down, encrypt everything, turn off the unlock fingers and require the long password to unlock. Then let them guess which finger is which.

      While I think length + complexity is the answer, special characters made dictionary words safe to use providing the password is long enough. However you have a great point on this one, I would never use touch ID because its garbage for someone like me in a construction field who specifically doesn't wear gloves as it takes away from my feel therefor impeding my work. The shit just don't work for me. I tried it for about a week and decided when I was able to unlock my phone the whole 2 times that is was a waste of time. however it would be funny to watch the cops in frustration if that ever happened. However my wife uses it and has no issues with it at all. A function that allowed an "authorized" fingerprint to either encrypt and turn off face/touch ID and or wipe the phone silently would be a nice feature to rid the issue of compelled unlocking. I'm sure if you did it in a court room you would have hell to pay but if you did it before you actually got arrested they wouldn't(well shouldn't) be able to use it against you. you know use the claim you did it when first stopped so the cops wouldn't snoop through the naked pictures of your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend(s). Because everyone knows that cops can be scumbags when not in front of a judge. And you could probably use that defense justifiably with very little digging into recent cop douche baggery.

    11. Re:No real surprises here by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I walk down the street with my cock out all the time, fortunately its small and everyone just thinks I have bubble gum stuck to my crotch.

    12. Re: No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking terrorist.

    13. Re:No real surprises here by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on!

      We're goddam coders.

      One finger unlocks.

      Another bricks.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re:No real surprises here by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Unless you're a foreigner who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and went to Gitmo with no due process, no lawyer, no trial, and subjected to torture.

      Unless you're a civilian minding your own fucking business when the US dropped a goddam bomb on your motherfucking hospital on your own goddam sovereign soil.

      Unless you're an American citizen in Puerto Rico.

      Unless you have the goddam unmitigated gall to be driving while Black.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    15. Re:No real surprises here by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Why isn't this modded up?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    16. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're putting together a wish list, then one finger should unlock and the other should reveal fake, but sensible, data.

    17. Re: No real surprises here by alexo · · Score: 2

      This. A million times. Seriously, what's so hard about being part of a community and following rules?

      Rosa Parks would like to have a word with you.

    18. Re:No real surprises here by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      A function that allowed an "authorized" fingerprint to either encrypt and turn off face/touch ID and or wipe the phone silently would be a nice feature to rid the issue of compelled unlocking. I'm sure if you did it in a court room you would have hell to pay but if you did it before you actually got arrested they wouldn't(well shouldn't) be able to use it against you.

      Actually, as of iOS 12 you can just press the power button five times in a row and it’ll disable Touch ID / Face ID.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    19. Re:No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless you are a guy and your crazy ex-gf reported you to the very not-busy cyber crime department/fbi tips database for "being up to something"
      Congratulations - you are now on a list.

      The fbi says this actually happens very often....and in 2 years my name will be dropped from the list automatically, but until then, secondary screening is mandatory.

      Talk about a good use of resources.

    20. Re: No real surprises here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what we call an inconvenient truth. That's why.

    21. Re:No real surprises here by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      From previous posters comments it seems to only be temporary.

    22. Re:No real surprises here by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      From previous posters comments it seems to only be temporary.

      I was pretty sure this was incorrect, but figured I'd test it. So about 5 hours ago I did the 5x power button press on my iPhone and then set it aside. I just picked it up again now, and it is still requiring a passcode.

      Now, after it's been unlocked with a passcode, then TouchID or FaceID will be re-enabled. But until that happens, they stay disabled.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    23. Re:No real surprises here by Tom · · Score: 1

      You don't want to brick because you can easily use the lock finger by mistake. But it should be a hassle to unlock after, and require something non-biometric.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re: No real surprises here by Tom · · Score: 1

      Because nobody has ever, in the history of the world, been wrongfully indicted by the police.

      I have a newsflash for you: Terrorists aren't caught by the methods they sell us to fight terrorism. Quick quiz: How many terrorists have been caught at the body scanners and pat-down checks at the airport?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    25. Re:No real surprises here by Tom · · Score: 1

      While I think length + complexity is the answer,

      No, it isn't. I've given speeches about this. Complexity is bullshit. On the contrary, a number of attacks (such as shoulder surfing) are made easier with complexity, because you type slower.

      special characters made dictionary words safe to use providing the password is long enough.

      No, it doesn't. Every cracking tool worth the name uses permutations to replace letters with special characters. If you've had the idea, don't you think people who do this stuff for a living haven't ?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re:No real surprises here by Tom · · Score: 1

      I dimly remember that turning it off will also require your passcode the first time after it turns on again. But I could be wrong.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    27. Re:No real surprises here by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is correct. But that might be slightly harder to do when you’re being pulled over.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    28. Re:No real surprises here by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I know plenty of professional pen testers. I know most of the tactics. I have yet to have an issue. I have tried to brute my own passwords, to no avail. I didn't say use common dict words. You frequent IRC? Maybe you can be the one to prove me wrong? I would love to see it as I have yet to see someone give me a password over 8 characters of mine to me. As far as your comment on shoulder surfing. That's about the oldest trick in the book, and I didn't start using computers yesterday. Plus muscle memory goes a long way for speediness.

    29. Re:No real surprises here by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, if I used touchID that would be nice to know, but you can scroll around for my rant as to why it sucks. Thanks for the clarity though.

  15. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a specific source about the (lack of) indictments? Can you post it?

  16. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was one of those "anonymous sources" that the Trumpers tell us not to trust.

    It's OK when they tell you trust them, apparently.

  17. Why would anybody trust a mobile listening device? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, people, your phones have back-doors, front-doors, compromised apps, malware, etc. on them and send data into insecure clouds. Do not trust your phones. The only way you could ever trust your phones was is there was strong legal protection for your data. There is not. Thanks to the raising authoritarians and proto-fascists in the West, there is the opposite.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  18. Re:President Trump owned the libs by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are cheering for the downfall of your own country? Fascinating.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  19. Re:President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me? I'm from Russia. /AC

  20. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, do you carry notebooks written in Linear A and B? Are all your chips home-made?

  21. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And why would I do that? Are you stupid? (Well, you are an AC, so the question is redundant...)

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  22. Re: So much data and no indictments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about: "Lock Her Up!" or "No Collusion"? Apparently, it DOES work!

    "R"etard.

  23. That's why you can disable Touch ID / Face ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a simple two button squeeze you can do as you take your phone out of your pocket. Then your phone will only unlock with the password (if you care about security, you use a passWORD, not a passcode)

    Of course if the Feds bust down your door with guns drawn reaching into your pocket is probably a really bad idea, but they don't do that unless they already have so much other proof that keeping what is on your phone from them probably doesn't help you that much.

  24. If you're a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use your index finger to unlock your phone.
    At least on my phone, 5 incorrect finger print attempts locks out the finger print unlock until you enter the passcode.

    It also won't let you use your finger print to unlock from a reboot.

    1. Re:If you're a criminal by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      That's why you use your dick! Fool proof!

  25. Every technology adopted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    acts like another bar on our prison cell. A new law or constitutional change won't prevent wrong doing by police. Companies also assume their patrons have broken some law and make their account, transactions, and video interaction easily available to the police, and even easier upon reasonable suspicion.

  26. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    strong legal protection does not go far enough.. making it illegal to peek in my windows won't make me take down my drapes.

  27. Re:President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is cheering the absolute opposite...

  28. Re:President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're the one who stole the election from Hillary. Damn you, russian hacker! IT WAS HER TURN!!!

  29. Why no goofy libtard comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the goofy libtard comments?

    I only clicked this uninteresting article in the hopes of reading some nutballs rant about Trump.

    Disappointing.

  30. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe people should exercise their 2nd amendment rights... that's what the president has previously said about opponents.

  31. Do you vote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you vote? Do you buy stuff? Do you form opinions on any matter. What makes you think you're unimportant? You certainly express opinions on Slashdot. Being grey enough to not be worth spying on is very difficult when the price of spying on someone reaches zero. Worse, it reaches zero because YOU HELP THEM spy on you.

    ------
    Look, what if Trump had been competent?
    He has access to every US secret, and enough laws have been written to use a loyal FBI to spy on his political opponents. If he'd been a proper trojan President, USA would be p0wned now.

    Putin would own 5 eyes countries. The Republicans would limp around covering for Trump, Nunes would leak away secrets on demand from the Whitehouse, Mitch McConnell would block any oversight. He'd plug Putin into all that data and all that surveillance network on the excuse of fighting ISIS, and you've lost everything.

    The only thing that saved you this time was Trump's incompetence.

    If Trump had been a proper Elop figure, you're lose everything.

    1. Re:Do you vote? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I love how you guys are still using the same bullshit years gone. Grow up, maybe you're the problem. Have you ever stopped for even 30 seconds to think about that? Maybe the shit like this has pushed the sane half of the country to do what ever is necessary to push back against your ignorance. Please for the sake of the country seek help.

  32. Re: So much data and no indictments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about

    I thought you libtards were against "whataboutism", but there you go... As for the rest of your rant, you seem to be confirming what I say. "Lock her up" obviously hasn't worked very well for those who use it, and "no collusion" appears for the moment to be simply a factual statement along the lines of nabla dot B = zero, you can repeat it or not, it ain't gonna be any less true.

  33. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing your very paranoid self online, one naturally wonders what kind of magic are you using to access those Internets. Your computer isn't much safer from your phone, yet here you are.

  34. Another reason not to use biometrics by jonwil · · Score: 1

    If you use a password or code to unlock your encrypted devices and data then (according to quite a few different court rulings) you are protected by the 5th amendment and can't be forced to give up the password or code (although exactly how far that protection extends depends on which court ruling(s) apply in your jurisdiction). No such protection exists when it comes to things like fingerprint or facial recognition or other biometrics.

    Plus its a lot easier for bad guys (whoever they may be) to defeat biometrics. Not only are there all sorts of examples of how to defeat fingerprint recognition (including the Mythbusters busting all the fingerprint scanners they tried) but its a lot easier for a bad guy who wants to get at your data to grab you, grab your device and force your finger onto the sensor (or hold your face in the right place for the facial recognition to work) than it is for those same bad guys to force you to give up your secret code.

    I personally do not use biometrics for anything (actually there is one place I do volunteer work at where they use a fingerprint scanner to scan people in and out but that's not for security, its only so they can verify who is in the building if something goes wrong) and will not do so in the future if I can avoid it (e.g. if my next phone has biometrics I will turn it off and not use it)

  35. thats bad by MahmoudAhmed · · Score: 0

    oh thats bad my final review https://myfinalreview.com/

  36. Re:President Trump owned the libs by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Being dumb does change reality. Although dumb people are known to not get that. Well, I look forward to morons like you saying dumb things like "How could we have known?" and "It was xyz that ruined it!"

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  37. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gweihir · · Score: 1, Informative

    Are you deranged? Why would I not use anything just because it is not trustworthy? Listen, moron, here is how you do it: You use it but you do not trust it. Takes two brain cells to rub together to see that though and you clearly do not have them.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  38. Biometrics Are Universally Insecure by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Biometrics are notorious for being easy to fool, even the emerging 3D-face-scanning stuff coming out is going to be as bad, because the sensors can't be integrated into the chips themselves, in turn you could always just remove the sensor, replace it with a serial line, and spoof whatever signal it expected to see from a "3D" scan using an image.
    Two-factor authentication is a joke when biometrics are involved, because the biometric component negates any other component. Security can't be about something someone has (e.g. CAC cards) and is (e.g. biometrics) alone - the something someone knows (e.g. password) is the most critical factor because it can't be stolen, it can't be spoofed, and in extreme cases it can't even be cut off with a saw or scooped out of an eyesocket with a spoon (at least, not directly.)
    Making biometrics a part (yes, even a part) of a security deployment of any kind is akin to making everyone set up their full name as a username with their social security number as their password - it's fucking dumb to use public information (no matter how convoluted to spoof, because if it can be done it will be done) for security.

  39. Well, who cares if government has more and more and more access to your "papers" as long as political factions aren't using it in violation of the 4th and 5th amendment to harm their political opponen...OH FUCK

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re: Ok by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Papers please, comrade.

  40. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    Problem is even if you get rid of your phone, pretty much every device nowadays is littered with sensors and internet access. TVs, cars, fitness devices, furniture etc. . Even if you got rid of everything in your own room, its even possible to spy on you from adjacent rooms (Wifi).

    Privacy has competed with humans need for comfort and lost.

  41. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gtall · · Score: 1

    and the rising authoritarians in China and Russia, although admittedly they had a head start.

    India is not far behind, nor Pakistan. Cuba was always in the vanguard ever since Castro decided to be la Suprema.

  42. Why privacy matters to everyone, even the innocent by overlook77 · · Score: 1

    This is the event that made me realize digital privacy is important to anyone, not just those who know they are doing something they need to hide. There was a case a few years ago where some guy left his toddler in the carseat instead of dropping him off at daycare and the kid died. The police went through his online history and found he was talking to prostitutes and engaging in other extramarital, sexually deviant behavior. On that alone, they gave him life in prison because a jury believed he intentionally left the child to die based on that alone. I have no idea if that's what truly happened or not, maybe there was other evidence that really connected those dots. But based on what was in the news, I found that to be way outside of what a reasonable person would consider proving beyond reasonable doubt. It sounded more like a moralistic judgement based on his online activity that had nothing to do with the death. This is the problem as I see it; who gets to defines what 'normal' online behavior is? If you get accused of a crime you didn't do and it's discovered that you watched graphic accidents on LiveLeak, or perused escort ads, or looked at extreme pornography etc, there's no frame of reference for how "normal" or common that behavior is. Until that is better understood by the general public, any prosecutor can convince a group of 12 mediocre idiots off the street to convict you on any charge they want based on character assassination alone.

  43. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rudy's on a train to nowhere, halfway across the line...

    It was amazing how all of the media outlets took one "anonmous source" *cough* Rudy Giuliani *cough* and started echoing off each other to the point where it's now taken as fact. Of course doing it in the hopes it subconsciously works is good for ratings, so who cares about factual accuracy, right?

  44. Trump enables his own prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Trump signs the anti-privacy law that allows investigators to more uncover more of his crimes?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9RAZxNdCk8

  45. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gweihir · · Score: 2

    I never said to get rid of it. Whatever gave you that idea? Just do not put stuff on it you want to keep secret.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  46. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Indeed. But the West was supposed to be the model that showed everybody how it could be done differently. Seems that failed and the whole world is going to hell. Again.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  47. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all being used as smokescreen. Republicans keeping Trump safe long enough to get what they want from him. This border wall garbage has conveniently overshadowed the fact that we still have a $22 trillion national debt. We are all being played, and we will all throw our vote away again in 2020 just like we all did in 2016. Welcome to the new reality.

  48. Re: President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a "Russian troll" and I don't care that you're being played. Just relax and try to enjoy it.

  49. Donald Trump should have hired me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't own a smartphone, I don't search with Google, I keep my inbox to zero messages as often as possible and I never use biometrics. Man, it's too bad Trump didn't have me working for him! They'd have found nothing on me.

  50. Re:President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you talking to yourself again?

  51. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    In this case the phones were unlocked because of the use of biometrics instead of password only protection. If they were locked only with passwords and Cohen didn’t cooperate, the FBI would have had to employ hackers.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  52. Re: As an American watching Trump dying in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sasha, you obviously need to get laid. Surely SOMEWHERE in Kiev you can find a toothless crackwhore who will give it up for you.

  53. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    You're wasting your time. The AC seems like a police-state apologist.

  54. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    I would never own an "internet connected" vehicle. I may purchase one and then rip out the wifi/GSM module. But the sad part is the normies don't even understand what they are doing to their self. They think "OH LOOK I can browse facebook faster in my car now that I have car wifi!!" when in reality they are just helping track their family and children. The internet has been destroyed since the non nerds took over. I want it back damnit!

  55. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Yes to both. I am trying to follow George Charlin's advice to "just not give a shit" about ACs, but I clearly have some way to go still. Stupidity just sets me off.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  56. Re: Why would anybody trust a mobile listening dev by chill · · Score: 2

    That's a red herring. The phone isn't so much a storage device itself, as it is conduit to all of your online data.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  57. Re:President Trump owned the libs by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Since you are listening (well, as far as you are capable, which is clearly rather pathetic), obviously not.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  58. Re: Why would anybody trust a mobile listening dev by j-turkey · · Score: 1

    I'm curious - why are you so quick to call anyone who questions your comment or respectfully disagrees with you stupid (or other ad hominem insults that aren't germane to the discussion )?

    --

    -Turkey

  59. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Pitawg · · Score: 1

    You give them more detail of the inner workings of you, when you play with their broken toys. You are mapping out more of your tiny little brain by trying to fool the collection pile. Think you can outsmart a pile? They are not looking at your data live, while you are inputting or taking actions. They collect the everything. They process what is in it, from every direction, once they finally gain interest in you. (thinking "Eww, I will search for "cats" at midnight, that will fool them. They will totally not know, and will think I like cats." They find later, "yeah, he searched for cats trying to play or something. It was his adjusted typing profile, and twenty seconds after he used his password on twitser. He also kept holding it at the same height in the air.)

    It is due to way-too-smart-for-everyone rubes like you that bought the broken tech toys, allowing the collectors to mass produce, instead of waiting for the discussion on data safety.

    Your little quirks and habits will stand out in the data, like your bad breath, and non-wiped bottom. Not like hygiene is expected with people like you that don't care about that with which you touch and play.

  60. Re: Why would anybody trust a mobile listening dev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, that's how I use your daughters. But only when I'm really drunk.

  61. iOS password-only auto-locking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With biometric authentication, you are only protected by the 4th amendment. Your finger/face/etc. are akin to a key, and a warrant can compel you to unlock the device with it.

    iOS devices auto-lock after eight hours after the last use of the device:

    * https://www.macworld.com/article/3072181/new-touch-id-rules-why-you-have-to-enter-your-passcode-when-you-wake-up.html

    See also the "cop button":

    * https://www.imore.com/how-quickly-disable-touch-id-when-you-need-extra-security

  62. FBI Easily Retrieved Michael Cohen's Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they didn't get enough.

  63. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by gweihir · · Score: 1

    You have no clue how things actually work. They do most decidedly not "collect everything". That would cause numerous problems, among them that their collection methods would be far too easy to detect. This is not a game that works well with a big ego (which you have in spades), bit one that requires some actual insight (of which you have none).

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  64. Re: Why would anybody trust a mobile listening dev by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Ah, no? It is not?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  65. Re:President Trump owned the libs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I take it English is not your first language? Why is it that uneducated rubes are the first to call people idiots and fools?

  66. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do most decidedly not "collect everything"

    Hahaha, the stupid guy thinks himself a privy to the inner workings of the intelligence services.

    their collection methods would be far too easy to detect.

    LOL, the stupid guy must have missed the stories about NSA having those little taps to all the telecom communications infrastructure, from the warmth of the offices of the telecom companies themselves to the cold of the bottom of the ocean. And we're not even touching their antenna business.

    You must be really, really stupid to think that someone will go to these lengths to collect data and then don't collect and keep all of it. In an age when even a private company keeps all they can, even after a user asks for it to be "deleted"?

    You're not just stupid, you're a certified idiot with less than amoeba intelligence and zero critical skills.

  67. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, looks like we have a true badass over here...

    I may purchase one and then rip out the wifi/GSM module

    You obviously have not seen modern car electronics. Or ever opened a car hood.

    the normies don't even understand

    I have bad news for you, "nerd", you're one of them "normies". You're not Neo, not Morpheus, not even Cypher, just a larva of an agent stuck in a vat, probably not even a solitary vat ;)

  68. Re: As an American watching Trump dying in priso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khuev is not in Russia, George. Khuev is a dirty hellhole manufactured by the prowestern Ukrainian "democrats", errr oligarchs.

  69. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    If you think there inst an ESP8266 or equivalent somewhere in that PCM you dont understand how electronics work. Once you found the module you could easily disable it numerous ways. If it would cause the vehicle to stop working, well you return it as garbage and laugh at the poor fuck that has to push onto the lot after the AAA driver drops it in the middle of the driveway at my request. You seem to be the internet warrior going on about, well whatever it was that i could tell was a waste of time reading. glfh.

  70. he should have used huawai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he should have used huawai

  71. Re:Why would anybody trust a mobile listening devi by Pitawg · · Score: 1

    You went from telling of the concerns and danger of the collectors' toys, to arguing there is no danger "if you're smart", within a few exchanges with the AC. You even flustered your response, seething hate, but not actually saying anything more that was useful.

    The collector is not one party, as everyone collects their little parts. The pile, and "the everything" is not a single collection. However, telling a questioning person, that does not seem to have a grip on how anything works, to go ahead and use the broken toys, is not a plan for the future. It was that geek excitement that got the idiots of the world interested in those dangerous things, before they were ready, much less safe.

    You say everything is not saved, but you have no clue what is, and isn;t kept and for how long by any party, including the chips on your devices that cannot really delete completely. You disbelieve the government entities keep encrypted streams off the backbone lines, as long as they can, hoping to break it one day, but allowing parties to be connected while unreadable. All of that is nothing. Due to the various, and even innocuous, data being kept, something within it will become at least embarrassing, and possibly illegal, in the future near enough to cause you or someone you care for, pain, suffering, or time.

    You think your computer and security activities and interests, make you all knowing, but they make you dangerous when seen by others. Slow down your roll. Your one liner responses seem to say you have a bit of stress built up, and it is affecting your responses. Don't add more over this.