What is Pegasus? How Surveillance Spyware Invades Phones

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pegasus-how-surveillance-spyware-invades-phones/

I wonder if this concerns anyone other than me on this forum? I also wonder what others thoughts on how this can possibly be acceptable in a free society? If we are not free to have conversations, exist in our own person, have private information without government intrusion are we really a free people at all?

The government wants us to be unarmed and under constant surveillance with systems like this where all we have to do is miss a phone call to be spied on. No clicking links, no spam email, just a phone number is all they need and all your encryption is officially worthless. This type of software should be illegal for anyone to own including the government.

 

Like with any other power, given to the government, there need to be safeguards in place, to see that it is not misused. I guess if one is unable to believe the government worthy of any trust whatsoever, that person would prefer to make the government impotent, thereby empowering criminals. Realistically speaking, however, for most of us, there is no reason that the central government would have any interest in spying on us. My biggest concern would be having this technology employed against journalists. My suggestion for preventing that from happening, would be to insure that at the judicial hearings in which approval will need be granted for its use, there be a truly independent representative of the people, akin to a public defender's office, so that it is not simply a one- sided case from the NSA, CIA, or FBI, on which the judge has to rely.

 

I don’t think anyone should have this power most certainly not the government. I worry about targeting political opponents. The ability to just listen in on you so easily. This is also an obviously secret program that we have no idea what lvl of officials have access to. Watergate has been watered down so bad by these abilities it’s not even funny. To just say I have nothing to hide is insane to me. What if a hacker got the info derived from this? What if it was used to extort people on line? The problem is our government doesn’t just spy, they spy and store. I don’t know if you have read Snowdens book but if you haven’t you should. We should not trust our government to have this power.

 

Just to clarify one point: I didn't say that I had nothing to hide (i.e., which I would like to keep private), but that I saw no reason that the government would have any interest in me. I did not mean by this, that "the government" could be fully trusted. I did not read Snowden's book, though I am a supporter of what he did. But my understanding is that the things that he revealed, were POLICIES THAT WERE BEING KEPT SECRET FROM THE PUBLIC. What I was advocating in my reply, was that there be a publically- acknowledged process behind the use of this technology, for only very specific uses, with legitimate, INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT.

The idea that, under these circumstances, the government would still be able to "bug" me, and would store whatever useless information their spying had gathered, and that some hacker would then be able to break into the presumably most secure of data bases, and after getting in, would have any interest in my data, seems extremely far fetched. It seems far more likely to me that a hacker could get my financial info by hacking my credit card company, or bank; and that they could get my medical info from hacking my insurance company, or primary medical group, or blood lab. This, unfortunately, is the current state of affairs.

I am just saying that this type of threat must be seen both in relative terms, as well as with consideration given to the benefits of this type of program, which I think might be greater than the benefits of a lot of the other modern arrangements, involving my personal information. IOW, you did not address the other side of the ledger: what would be gained/lost, depending on whether or not our country avails itself of this technology.

 

The still thinking Left used to understand these things.

“Since only urgent necessity justifies invasion of First Amendment freedoms, the intelligence establishment, in ironic deference to the need for a justification, consistently exaggerates the threat of revolution and violence. Thus a permanently endangered national security is the illegitimate child of the First Amendment. Political intelligence is a by-product of diplomatic and military conflict, and despite its domestic providence, is marked by a similar hostility toward the intelligence target (itself a revealingly hostile term of art). Like its military model, even though the target is an American national engaged in lawful political activities in his own country, he is viewed in an adversary context. Life in a relatively open society, which boasts of its freedom, makes the target enormously vulnerable when his policies come under hostile investigation by a secret police unit with an anti-subversive Mission.”
THE AGE OF SURVEILLANCE, The Aims and Methods of America's Political intelligence System, Frank J. Donner, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1980. p. 4.

 

I think that if they sent a text or email to every citizen that had a government sponsored data breach after the surveillance has ended or anytime their actions trigger a government sponsored data breach. I think if this were to happen you would see much much much more opposition to it because you don’t have to be a target of the government for a government sponsored data breach. All you have to do is call outside of the country, or send a email that hits servers outside of the country, or receive an email that originated outside of the country or say key words in a text, email, or even key strokes will trigger an automatic data breach. This is excluding this new program that all you need is a missed call.


I would highly encourage you to read his book, or anyone for that matter that may be curious. He speaks about encryptions and the value of those in that book. Being this program is out it encryption officially means nothing.

 

How did it get from the Israeli company to the government?

If you are concerned about the Israelis, or the government then don't use a smartphone.

Most people know that emails, messages and phones can be spied on. Why do you think criminals never discuss "business" over the phone?

 

They sell it to government(s)

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2022/feb/02/fbi-confirms-it-obtained-nsos-pegasus-spyware

Our government does run this program

 

I totally agree; many privacy rights were forfeited under the Patriot Act and the NDAA since 9/11. They are akin to abuses of power on both sides of the aisle. AFAIK, the Israeli's developed this private software and have been selectively selling it to nation states and likely corps, maybe even some individuals. 60 minutes ran a segment on this back in mid 2016-1018? It's totally invasive and dangerous as your smart phones is a 100% spying device.

It's a blackmailer's dream software.

 

If it concerns you, then don't use a smartphone.

 

That’s very libertarian of you

 

I accept it as a fact of life and NEVER send sensitive information over email, text message or phone. Its a second nature for me, and has been for a long time. I would highly recommend you take the same approach. Anyone who expects total privacy in those areas is likely to get burned sooner or later. And no, I would not listen to a government official assuring me that emails, or smartphones are secure. They are not secure, and never will be. Period.

 

Work pays for my phone. If it didn't, I wouldn't have one. There's literally no way to have a phone today without potentially being tracked and spied on (excepting for land lines, tho I'm not entirely certain those are safe either...)

 

You don’t store passwords on your phone? Use your phone for work you may copyright? Do banking on your phone? Pay bills on your phone? Order personal things online? Let’s say you don’t use your phone, do you use your computer for any of those?

let’s say your son or daughter gets exploited online for a young mistake? Maybe they use your phone?

everyone has secretes the web can find with tools like these.

 

That does not mean we should permit our government to do it without letting us know. If you get a warrant served to search your house you still get to see the warrant. There is no proof of warrant on data collection by our government. No letting you know after either. Sure they say they have a warrant that was signed by the secret courts but how do you know? How do you know they didn’t just post date it if you did see one? This is a violation of rights at so many levels.

 

I guess I’m more liberal on this issue than most. Kind of weird

 

These were the arguments being made when the Patriot Act was being worked on. You are 20 years too late. The genie is out of the bag.

But I do find it funny that you think the greatest threat to you personally is the government.

 

Our government at its current capacity is a threat to freedom. What constitutional right truly exists anymore outside of freedom of religion.

also, I have been an opponent of the patriot act from day one, even when the left was critical of it. The left only warmed up to it after Obama did. This is an ideal that I share only with libertarians anymore. I guarantee that Rand Paul if he ever took presidency he would have done away with it. The government loves that power and they will never let it go unless we get a libertarian in and I’m not a libertarian fan anymore because of other reasons. But if Trump runs… it’ll be either them or the constitutionalist party.

Just because the patriot act is old does not mean you can’t oppose it. Or at the very least require the government to inform anyone who’s data was taken due to a warrant

 

I agree.

 

republicans want to have a backdoor key to all encryption too now, crazy

"Republican senators introduce bill that tech advocates have warned would weaken privacy"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/gop...t-would-create-a-backdoor-for-encryption.html

"A group of Republican senators introduced a bill Tuesday that would weaken the lawful use of encryption in communication services so law enforcement officials could gain access to devices with a warrant."

"The “Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act” was introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham and Sens. Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn."

 

Hell no.

No.

Never.

Yes, and I have top of the line firewall and other tools to minimize the risk. The risk is still there, and as I said, - I accept is as a matter of fact, and act accordingly.

You need to accept that as a matter of fact, and take all the precautions you can.

It sounds like you expect the government to somehow ensure your phone and computers are 100% secure, but that will never happen. Its up to you to deal with the risk.

 

Trade-offs between convenience and safeguarding privacy.

I've always wondered why both computers and smartphones (a form of mini-computer) almost seem to be designed to allow hackers to be able to remotely gain access over the programming of the entire phone.
It couldn't be that hard to come up with a design that would make that impossible, would it?

 

I would appreciate if you could direct us to more specific information about how this technology is currently being used. My impression, from your OP, was that it was for what I would call, "big fish," that is, terrorists and big-time criminals; and I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that a judge must issue a warrant, first. That is why I said that I thought what was important was insuring truly independent oversight, over this system. You seem to be depicting it, now, however, as if it is a commonplace procedure, with few or no controls placed upon it. So the thread seems to have become more about general principles, rather than anything specific.

As I'd also said, I supported what Snowden did, because the Obama Administration was hiding this activity from the public. My understanding is that much of that activity has ceased, and whatever remains, we now do know about its existence, and how it operates. In fact, that you can report to us about this, from something you read, online, suggests to me that the government is being transparent about using this technology. Comment?

Lastly, your seeming complaint that most jumps out to me (bolded, above), is that the government does not present it's warrant at the time it is granted. Obviously, this is an unworkable proposition, if you are tracking a developing terrorist plot. The same is true of tracking other large scale, criminal operations, in which the information gathered is going to be used to make a bust. So you think it is impossible to allow this technology, just for those purposes, and not have it applied to the general public?

 

I just want to let people know that I am aware of one case where a law enforcement agency used a ton of vague insinuations and mischaracterizations to get a judge to grant a very extensive warrant that would most likely never have been granted otherwise.
When these warrants are never even made public, will there ever be any accountability?

I can tell you it's definitely not like the judges are ever launching an independent investigation of their own to see if everything presented to them was completely accurate.