Re:“You Have Zero Privacy” Says Internal Royal Canadian Moun...
by hackerfromthefu on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @07:13AM
(#25122837)
Theres important things missing from this summary - such as hiding that they have these capabilities, lying about parts of it, going against privacy expectations set by other parts of their government.
That's a very blatant double standard - privacy for them, but not for us.
Their culture as indicated by their actions (plus wording in training materials) is that they don't care about the rights of the people which the people believe they have, and are willing to lie to abuse the public's privacy.
Its familiar, maybe from the plot of a bad action movie where the spy agency has gone rogue?
Re:“You Have Zero Privacy” Says Internal Royal Canadian Moun...
by bawolff on Tuesday November 17, 2020 @02:03PM
(#25128110)
> That's a very blatant double standard - privacy for them, but not for us.
Other than the fb hack, these all seem to be consumer available technologies (albeit probably better versions). I've used proxies before. I've used search engines before.
Hardly the most rouge thing the rcmp has ever done.
The tl;dr:
Mounties purchased some sort of intelligence gathering software, and kept it secret for "national security" (i thought that was CSE or CSIS's job?)
Mounties have some sort of darknet search engine. Article implies the term "darknet" is being used liberally, possibly to include spying on protestors, but is very unclear on the details.
Mounties have some sort of vuln in facebook that allows them to see your fb friends even if set to private (this is probably the most significant revelation in the article imo)
Mounties use proxy software when working undercover (no kidding, never would have guessed that one)
Mounties have software to do sentiment analysis on intercepted or publicly available messages
It is implied that the mounties have a caviler attitude towards privacy violations.
--------
The article is a little light on details and high on unstated implications. I'm not exactly happy about all this but this is hardly a bombshell of privacy violation. Maybe there is bad things there, but the article just doesn't have the technical detail to judge.