Twitter and Legal Hacking

November 11th, 2011 by - No Comments »

I’ll admit I haven’t read through the whole article in the link below, but the government legally hacked someone? The fact that “legal” and “hacked” appear in the same sentence is a little concerning.

That being said, it is feasible that there are times when something like this might need to happen – National Security etc – and this was with reference to Wikileaks …but, what rights do we really have? Are liberties taken, or do we even believe that the liberties should be taken.

My thought is it can go either way, but if you are going to take away someone’s right to privacy, there had better be a darn good reason. That being said, I’ve heard talk of traffic traveling over and IP (what a concept) doesn’t belong the the person that is using the IP, therefore, can be intercepted. Really? That’s a little low don’t you think?

Soap box aside, like I said this conversation could go either way, here’s the link. See what you think about it – here, courtesy of the Guardian, UK.

Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet Traffic – Blog

November 16th, 2010 by - No Comments »

Via: Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet Traffic – Blog.

I was searching around Twitter for security insights – it helps to keep on top of things – and I found this. Here’s the first two paragraphs:

QUOTE:
For 18 minutes in April, China’s state-controlled telecommunications company hijacked 15 percent of the world’s Internet traffic, including data from U.S. military, civilian organizations and those of other U.S. allies.

This massive redirection of data has received scant attention in the mainstream media because the mechanics of how the hijacking was carried out and the implications of the incident are difficult for those outside the cybersecurity community to grasp, said a top security expert at McAfee, the world’s largest dedicated Internet security company.
UNQUOTE

Therefore, if there were any unprotected communications in that stream it is feasible that they were ‘seen’. This story didn’t make mainstream – not sure why, it’s significant enough. In the text they state that most would not understand what it is, therefore it was not reported mainstream. Not sure about the validity of that statement.

Suffice it to say it could happen again, and most of us would not know any different. But, to what end is China doing this? You have to wonder, right?