The Times: Police set to step up hacking of home PCs

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 06 Jan 2009, 22:51

I use TrueCrypt on my laptops. The good thing about it is that you can create two "partitions" in the one file so if the police... (sorry, some criminal...) forced you to give them the password, you would give the password to the fake partition and they wouldn't know that your really secrets were in the other.

(Is it this just government or am I getting paranoid?)

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 06 Jan 2009, 22:51

I use TrueCrypt on my laptops. The good thing about it is that you can create two "partitions" in the one file so if the police... (sorry, some criminal...) forced you to give them the password, you would give the password to the fake partition and they wouldn't know that your really secrets were in the other.

(Is it this just government or am I getting paranoid?)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jan 2009, 23:07

But if something is encrypted Mr Plod will be interested to see it (it won't take him long) but if it isn't encrypted he won't bother looking.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 07 Jan 2009, 09:45

It's been discussed here before ... but here's a reminder of how snooped upon we can be:

RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/uk ... 00023_en_1

The authorities can:
- Spy and bug you
- Force you to reveal encryption keys
- Force you to NOT say a word about having the keys seized ... and you must KEEP communicating & using the keys etc so that your partners in crime aren't aware of anything being up.

You can be jailed if you don't behave.

(I'm not sure if any court-case and jailing can be kept secret by the authorities to protect their spying ...)

Local authorities have however upset the apple cart by using RIPA warrants to spy on citizens ...

A survey of UK councils has found some are spying on litter louts and people who let dogs foul public places, using laws to track criminals and terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 07 Jan 2009, 10:11

In other words you are a criminal if you REFUSE to actively spy on your associates.

This is the East German level of control, gone digital.

BTW my brother knows a lot more about this than he tells me. He spends a lot of time at GCHQ and related sites.

chrisc · Post by **chrisc** » 07 Jan 2009, 10:19

Vortex wrote:(I'm not sure if any court-case and jailing can be kept secret by the authorities to protect their spying ...)

Right, this law appears to be totally based on the premise that it'll scare people shit less and they will comply -- if anyone refuses to comply and it's ends up in court it'll be a really interesting case!

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 07 Jan 2009, 10:30

The government can also issue Gag orders that are illegaly to talk about or breach if your aware of them.
So if ever it doesnt want a story talked about, it just sends a blanket gag order to all the papers and even stuff like Guido Faulkes.

Its illegal for them to breach it or say what it contains or even that it exists.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 07 Jan 2009, 10:43

I have found that:

1. There are a lot of spooks about.
2. They are nice people.
3. They have the full weight of the authorities behind them.
4. They believe in what they are doing.
5. They don't care about you as an individual - they will go away once you play ball ... or crush you if you resist.

If they are on your case it's wise to simply do what they want.

They same applies to big companies:
1. They are nasty people.
2. They can afford to have lawyers harass you full time.
3. They often have the full weight of the authorities behind them.
4. They don't care about you as an individual - they will go away once you play ball ... or crush you if you resist.

Again, if they are on your case it's wise to simply do what they want.

In reality - unless you are very brave - you will probably be well advised not to fight Big Brother.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:08

Vortex wrote: In reality - unless you are very brave - you will probably be well advised not to fight Big Brother.

Which is why secrecy is so important to all authoritarian regimes. As long as the sheeple don't realise the extent of control over them, they will not self-organise in their own defence.

Alternatively, as long as they can still afford home delivery pizza, and Big Brother is on the box, they probably just couldn't care less...

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:10

I wonder how well they'd do against a Mac that's buttoned up tighter than a nuns wimple?

Any nerds out there?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:18

skeptik wrote:I wonder how well they'd do against a Mac that's buttoned up tighter than a nuns wimple?

Any nerds out there?

So you are going to encrypt ALL your messages?

You are going to somehow hide ALL your Google searches?

You are going to shield ALL your PC kit against electronic monitoring kit sitting in a van outside your house?

You are going to buy an untraceable (?) mobile phone and SIM card with cash to make private calls?

You are going to drive miles away from your home to make those calls so that 'traffic analysis' can't be used against you?

And ... you are going to ensure that EVERYONE you talk to protects ALL their communications traffic in the same way?

Nah, once the spooks want to check you out, you've had it.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:36

Vortex wrote:
skeptik wrote:I wonder how well they'd do against a Mac that's buttoned up tighter than a nuns wimple?

Any nerds out there?
So you are going to encrypt ALL your messages?

You are going to somehow hide ALL your Google searches?

You are going to shield ALL your PC kit against electronic monitoring kit sitting in a van outside your house?

You are going to buy an untraceable (?) mobile phone and SIM card with cash to make private calls?

You are going to drive miles away from your home to make those calls so that 'traffic analysis' can't be used against you?

And ... you are going to ensure that EVERYONE you talk to protects ALL their communications traffic in the same way?

Nah, once the spooks want to check you out, you've had it.

Nope, none of that as I've got nothing to hide. I've always assumed that any mediated communication isn't secure. On the other hand I've never had any trouble with common or garden hackers, spyware or viruses. Haven't used antivirus software in many years as there doesnt seem to be any point with OSX. (Used to run the freeware Disinfectant occasionally under OS 9 and earlier) My only extra provision against unwanted intrusion is the use of Adblock Plus in Firefox - which works a treat.

I was just wondering if TPTB could scoop a Macs HD over the internet even with all the built in protection set up correctly and switched on. Have Apple provided them with a back door whereby any probing wouldn't show up in the firewall log, I wonder? Considering the political history of the USA since 9/11, I wouldn't be surprised.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:42

As I understand it, (and I don't understand much) there is no encryption that will not yield its secrets in a few zillion flops of the GCHQ electronic calculating devices. Or has quantum computing reached the point where Alice can pledge her troth to Bob in private?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:51

biffvernon wrote:As I understand it, (and I don't understand much) there is no encryption that will not yield its secrets in a few zillion flops of the GCHQ electronic calculating devices. Or has quantum computing reached the point where Alice can pledge her troth to Bob in private?

Encryption is NOT usually 'cracked' using raw computer power.

'Human factors' and other relatively simple techniques are the usual methods.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 07 Jan 2009, 16:26

I have access to the passwords on our student database. In bored moment I did a crude analysis of chosen passwords. I think it safe to say only a tiny percentage met the criteria of being even remotely 'safe'.

That said, I use easy passwords for low value sites, reserving truly random and hard to remember ones for important accounts.

Apart from the usual pet names, inflated (alter)egos seem popular...