Privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian sees the landscape of government surveillance shifting beneath our feet, as an industry grows to support monitoring programs. Through private companies, he says, governments are buying technology with the capacity to break into computers, steal documents and monitor activity — without detection. This TED Fellow gives an unsettling look at what’s to come.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at
Follow TED news on Twitter:
Like TED on Facebook:
Subscribe to our channel:
Nguồn: https://ftlinuxcourse.com
Xem thêm bài viết khác: https://ftlinuxcourse.com/lap-trinh-linux
Xem thêm Bài Viết:
- Trải nghiệm mới hay ho với hướng dẫn cài Mac Os trên vmware
- Bật mí cách cài đặt ssl miễn phí lên Let’s Encrypt
- Tuyệt chiêu tạo usb boot kali linux đơn giản dành cho bạn
- Hướng dẫn chi tiết từ A – Z các bước cài đặt Python trên Windows 10
- Bật mí quy trình cài đặt Kali Linux trên Vmware đúng chuẩn và chi tiết
we've gone far beyond into Total Surveillance, Tracking, Monitoring, and to assault. We're in the era of Culturecide, please see the doc on amazon e-books, 'Books by Vigo Bruun'. Every inch of the U.S. is zoned by surveillance and various elements then monitor and/or torment or torture victims. We're in a state of incarceration. If we bring this to light, the terrorists who live in the darkness will die out.
I think that we just see this problem through a wrong Prism, don't you think YouTube?
In an attempt to read what it said at 4:29, I slowed the video down to 0.25. The only thing I found out was: don't do it. The voices! It's FRICKING cREEPy oh my goodness xD
And no, in case you're wondering, it didn't say anything.
Fak prism
I TOTALLY CONCUR
Michigan is doing this now, literally said they'll be watching and listening to white people with opposing opinions. And all "hate speech" which doesn't exist. First amendment is under attack, next will be 2nd amendment….war
People it is real!
Peeps the cat!! Meow!!
Very worrying
paper cannot be hacked
As if Apple doesn't share personal info with FBI !
What about the smartphones cameras? 😐
One the reazons why terrorism exists is to justify government shadowing and collection info. It's not the main reazon, terrorist play many impotant roles as irregular army, where govs can't act fully open.
The only thing amusing about this video is that people didn't know??…. and that it's much MUCH worse than he makes it sound. How about, not just a "target"…….., but Everyone… all the time.. for decades.. all backed up for the the next Hitler to use against us. This is old news, and what this man is talking about would literally be a dream vacation next to what they are actually doing. There is the argument that there is too much data to sift through, so you kind of have privacy, I don't buy one bit… and even if it is true… for how long do you think that will be? CIA funded the startup of google. High tech algorithms already exist obviously and are getting better all the time. Artificial Intelligence is on the horizon or already here (considering what we know about is sometimes 50 YEARS behind what they are doing.). Echelon, Prism, etc….. all now out in the open (what we know about). Technology is still not just accelerating but exploding! To think we have privacy from this Tyrannical, ever growing more powerful government, is just… not realistic. Time for more people to get angry. Very angry. This problem will not be fixed from within the system that created it.
this guy promoted the use of apple's text messaging system, face time, and whatsapp, as privacy friendly applications. So kinda contradictory. I wouldn't take his word seriusly.
How can we be assured that government employees aren't active pedophiles remotely viewing minors through their phones or other devices? The available technology and the lack of any meaningful oversight virtually ensures that abuses can and do occur within the government.
This very topic that Mr Soghoian talks about is extremely unsettling to me. The fact that this power of technology can be used and misused by almost everyone is scary as it is. Now, we are introduced to the fact that the government can use this power to hack into phones and computers secretly to obtain personal data. Mr Soghoian said that since there is no special technology for people like journalists to use, the government can and has the means to not only hack the ‘bad guys’, but also the ordinary citizens.
This is just the beginning—as technology improves and advances as rapidly, we (ordinary citizens) are getting more and more vulnerable to these tactics used by the government in order to ‘enforce laws’. This also brings into question whether governments truly care about its people’s privacy and whether their ‘surveillance’ is reasonable and not taken too far.
(150 words, Lynn T, CMM/TB04)
I agree with what Christopher Soghoian says and how it is important to have an informed public debate for this matter. It is not right to have the capability of hacking into anyone’s to the computer to the extent of invading any individual’s privacy. It would definitely be an asset when tracking down criminals, pedophiles, drug dealers, terrorists, especially since there is an intention to prevent crime or harm on others. However, especially since we have so much data stored online, the fact that the government and FBI has access to our information without our knowledge and even authorization is unacceptable. I feel that something needs to be done such that even the government only has access when an individual is suspected of doing something malicious and not all the time. An organization, whether external or internal, needs to make sure that the government does not violate innocent individuals’ privacy. Isn’t it already a low-key crime to even be stalking us?
(161 words, Hafiz Ishak, CMM/TB03)
I do agree with what Christopher Soghoian had said that “Its vital that we have an informed public debate” about the government being able to hack into our devices anytime and any place as “There is no law passed specifically authorising this technic(hacking).Because of its power and potential for abuse…”. The role of the government is to keep its people safe and protect its people from harm.I do agree that by using such devices to hack into the systems of potential threats such as terrorism,we are kept safe.However the fact that these devices exist also make me question the government as they can hack into anybody’s device which threatens everyone’s privacy. Through his talk I also realised that there are companies who provide the government with such hacking services and devices such as “ Hacking Team” and “Gamma”. There is a Data Protection Act in Singapore and if Singapore does have these devices and are able to hack into our devices, wouldn’t that mean that the government also plays a role in protecting our data by not looking and sharing this private data? Overall,Christopher’s speech has been an eye opener and made me think about the government and our privacy.
( 200 words, Jovitha Anusha Charles, CMM/TB03)
I agree with the speaker’s point of view towards government surveillance. Looking at it from different perspectives, people may think that the government are somehow invading ones privacy. But from another point of view, they can just be trying to look out for citizens and are using the modern technology to catch criminals. In the end, that is what the citizens should be most concerned about, their safety. If someone was to be in the unfortunate position to be a victim to one of those crimes, and the government manages to come in time to save them, they wouldn’t be thinking in their head “I can’t believe they invaded my privacy!” At that moment, they can only be thankful. So I believe sometimes people need to trust decisions that the government makes and not only think about themselves.
(138 words, Qaisara, CMM, TB04)
I agree with his views that the government is going a bit too far with the infringement of people’s privacy. Yes it is a good tool to use to track down any illegal activities such as terrorism or pedophilia and such but is it really necessary to “hack” into people’s online activities just because they are the government?
I do agree that it is a good method to keep up with times on the government’s part but out private lives should be kept private and not being monitored by the government. The trust between the public and also the government is lost there.
However, I do kind of feel I’m contradicting myself because as much as I want the government to control the limitations on who to check on, it is kind of defeating the purpose because we never know who is involved in illegal activities in today’s day and age. A 16 year-old may be guilty for all we know.
It is very debatable but in conclusion, I do agree that the government is going too far in “hacking” into the public’s privacy online.
185 words, Nurul Asyiqin, CMM/TB04
What the guy said in his speech really sparks a debate. Government is capable of abusing surveillance to invade the privacy of celebrities, ordinary people, bad guys etc. But we ask ourselves, do they have the time to do such things? There are billions of people in the world, who in the right mind has the time to check out on each and everyone of them. The duty of the government is to facilitate the needs of people, keeping citizens safe. It is right that they use these methods to track down dangerous people like terrorists, hence no objection that they should continue this method.
The more important issue here is that we, as normal individuals, with sufficient knowledge can also develop such a software. By having this capability, anybody's privacy can potentially be invaded, gradually you will see tons of leaked celebrity nudes and more. Hence, measures must me taken to prevent such creepy things from happening.
(203 words)
Gerald TB03 CMM
I agree with Christopher Soghoian with regards to his views on today’s government surveillance. The technology available today gives an advantage to the government in terms of outsmarting potential criminals and also in controlling the citizens residing in the country. It reminds me of George Orwell’s prediction of the future world in his book ‘1984’, where government surveillance has reached a stage that people are given no freedom or privacy – all to prevent insurgency against the government. This also robbed the people of democracy and their rights. Though I agree that the government’s method of preventing criminal acts is justified and it is not unreasonable to trade our privacy for the safety of our country and people, I feel that it is necessary to call a public-informed debate as suggested by Christopher in order to prevent what George Orwell had envisaged in his book. I also feel that we should be concerned and kept in the loop about such technological advancements.
(171 words, Jamie Tan, CMM/TB03)
Christopher Soghoian is definitely right in my opinion; I believe that there should be more debate on the ethics of government surveillance and how it is being used or rather abused without our knowledge. It can be for the better and greatly help a nation’s defence and security when used right but when abused, it is an invasion of privacy, one that is uncalled for. The FBI hacks into the content of its suspects. I understand it is a necessary evil but I don’t entirely agree with it. What if the suspects wound up being innocent, is it fair then that all their online activity has been monitored by the government? At the same time, I also see the need and value of government surveillance as it can lead to really important revelations should any suspicious activity online be detected. It could potentially help solve a case. I’m on the fence about government surveillance, I see the capability it has to help a nation progress but I also question its intentions and whether or not any of it is entirely needed. (181 words, Aisyah AA, CMM TB04)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian's resting statement that the public needs to be aware of the hacking techniques law enforcement agencies have embraced as a means of conducting extensive surveillance on anyone that owns a laptop or computer. Surveillance companies who have sold their software to governments claim that the true intent of these surveillance methods are to trace terrorist activity and capture terrorists, criminals and pedophiles, yet they understand that some of the governments they are selling their software to are extremely corrupted and are likely to use the software to track down journalists and dissidents posting information regarding the government in hopes of inspiring a revolution and overthrowing their corrupt government. They are selling their software to power-thirsty government officials who are willing to torture journalists of their own country for their own welfare. There is no good in that and the companies part of this 5 billion dollar industry are merely escalating government dictatorship and violence. Furthermore, the government is utilising tax-payers’ money to fund these surveillance softwares to spy on its people when instead the money could have been used to develop the country’s education sector or infrastructure to improve their living conditions.
(199 words,Nurrisha Ismail,CMM/TB04)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian that we should have an informed public debate about using hacking as a law enforcement technique. The public deserves the right to know if the government is going to gain access to all their devices.
Indeed, using hacking, as a law enforcement technique would be effective in capturing terrorists and locating pedophiles however, I feel that governments using this technology should draw a clear line between what is defined as law enforcement and what is an illegal invasion of privacy. Also, by hacking and keeping an eye on every citizen, governments have changed the Internet from what was a tool of freedom and justice into space where one’s every action is under surveillance.
I have learnt quite a number of things; the government is always watching, committing a crime face-to-face would be better, and finally, some day people might stop using the Internet in an attempt to protect their privacy.
(155 words, Tovey Melody, CMM TB04)
I agree with Christopher Soghoain’s view that there should be an informed public debate on government surveillance. With all the evidence he has presented, it seems to me that it is no secret of what the governments in various countries are doing. So, I believe that they have the obligation to inform the public of at least an overview of their surveillance techniques. Invasion of personal privacy is a law, and I do not see why governments have to be exempted from it. People have the right to know that they could be at risk of being spied upon without their knowledge and they should have the right to take action against invasion of their privacy. The governments mentioned in the video may not be using surveillance techniques for corrupt purposes, but the very notion that they have the ability to do so would probably draw wary attention from the public. It would definitely be suspicious if the government had some secret surveillance plan that they did not want their citizens to know about. I would never have a peace of mind knowing they could watch every move I make without my knowledge.
(193 words, Julia Tan, CMM, TB03)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian's view on how governments using advanced surveillance technology to infringe on the privacy of their own people's private content is really taking it a step too far but really it is just the beginning.I think the fact that the government has the power to do this shouldn't be a reason why they are doing it,I do understand that breaching into people's web surfing sometimes is important to ensure that any terrorism is curbed however how can the people trust the government if even their own web browsing isn't kept private anymore?The web is certainly a platform for terrorist activities,to research on methods to further terrorist involvement as well as to recruit more people,one prevalent example being ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).However I feel governments should still put a limit or rather ensure that they know where to draw the line when it comes to how far they will go,instead of just randomly hacking into people's accounts,which is what they are doing,very bluntly put. (170 words,Sonia Tay Jing,CMM/TB04)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian’s view that governments are using advanced surveillance technology and software to pretty much hack everyone and anyone without their knowledge. I also agree with his comment about the need for a public debate about this.
Governments are supposed to serve the country and its people, to protect. I understand the impact that the Internet has had on security and privacy and those security methods have to be updated to stay ahead, but to think that these kinds of invasive methods are being used on unsuspecting victims is honestly terrifying. Your emails to loved ones, your private texts, everything is laid bare for the government to see.
I know that the Internet has become both a boon and a curse to security and privacy. For example, take the recent arrest of a Singaporean youth under the Internal Security Act. He was one of the first known self-radicalized youths in Singapore. He was inducted through online propaganda and was so far gone that he had planned to conduct terrorist activities in Singapore, including bombings and knife attacks.
However, there needs to be a limit to how far governments can go in surveillance, and I fear that that line has already been crossed.
( 219 words, Beh Jun, CMM/TB04 )
The fact that the government has the capabilities to hack into anyone’s content, whether civilian or terrorist, is astonishing. They can easily hack into anyone’s private content without leaving a trace. Yes, this can indeed help with the ongoing conflict with terrorists, but this can also breech civilians’ privacy.
Like what Christopher said in the speech, a debate is needed on the issue of governments having access to this exclusive technology. The ability to hack into anyone’s content can be either used for good or malicious intent. It really boils down to the honesty of the people in power. If the government is corrupt, they would use this technology to continue in their amoral ways. However, if the government is honest and clean, this access to the technology would certainly be a welcome to their arsenal against crime.
Either good or evil can be achieved with this technology, it all depends on who is able to get his/her hands on it. Civilians may have disagreements with the government having this kind of technology, but in the end it is up to the government and their values. The ball is on the government’s court in what they would do.
(198 words, Ian Kiew, CMM/TB01)
Christopher Soghoian has a good point. The government is using such technologies to hack into computers and what not. Why? Is the government so afraid of us? At one point in the video, Christopher Soghoian said that last year, Hacking Team’s software was used by the Moroccan government to target Moroccan journalists. And why did the government do that? Are they afraid of the news that Moroccan journalists might publish? And we do know that in so some parts of the world, governments are so afraid of what news journalists might put out that they go to such lengths and disrupt their process of getting news.
But what scares me the most is that some other people, some stranger in the government has complete full access to what I do on my computer, phone and more. It’s not that I have done something wrong but it feels like I am being watched 24/7, and that just creeps me out.
(165 words, sohyee, cmm/tb01)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian’s main point for the need to have a public debate on whether or not government surveillance is warranted. I personally feel that although such acts of mass gathering of intelligence is needed as part of preventive measures against threats of terrorism or other forms of conflict, the software and capability to do so should only be available to the governments of each country.
The fact that the surveillance software used to silently tap into our communication devices are developed and even sold by private corporations worries me more than actually being spied upon. This means that just about anyone out there with sufficient funding or who have the technical know-how to steal such technology can just about be as powerful as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the sense that even the FBI and their agents are possible targets for secret spying and hence, classified information can be leaked out.
(156 words, Naufal Hakym, CMM/TB01)
Using advanced surveillance techonolgy to monitor the netizens is, without a doubt, a good thing. Governments are able to counter the “bad guys” since some terrorist groups uses the internet to increase their followers and supporters. Before anything unfavourable happens, I’m glad the government can catch them first.
However, what then draws the line between supervising and intruding privacy? If the fact that the government have the power to monitor whatever is being done on technology, that also automatically mean that they are looking at normal everyday people’s action. Everything that I do now may be looked at by the government and that makes me feel uncomfortable in so many ways. I want to be able to do things without having so many pairs of eyes watching. What happened to online privacy then?
Sooner or later, people might not want to share anything on the internet anymore because of this, and that defeats the purpose of inventing it in the first place.
(162 words, Nurilsyamira Ismail, CMM/TB01)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian that there should be a debate about government surveillance and whether it is a suitable law enforcing technique. This is because I personally feel that having the government monitoring our personal online content is a violation of human rights. There are questions that could be asked on the necessity, morals, principles and ethics over surveillance. With the prevalence of private companies offering technology to governments that are unable to build their own, every government in the world is essentially able to conduct surveillance. This calls for the need to debate, which is what Christopher had brought forward as his viewpoint. Despite that there may be disagreements that the citizens’ privacy can be compromised in exchange for their safety, my personal standpoint on this revolves around the consequence of sacrificing one self’s privacy. Ultimately, if we can be deluded into thinking we are safe, then we could also be deluded into thinking that all our data is safe.
(162 words, Jamie Chiang, CMM/TB01)
I agree with Christopher Soghoian that governments have embraced hacking as a law enforcement technique without any real debate. He says that in the United States, where he is from, there has been no congressional hearings or law that has been passed specifically authorizing this technique. This shows that the government could be trying to cover up some of their intentions in not being open with the public about such an issue. Such technology can be used effectively in tracking down criminals, terrorists or other hackers but as Christopher Soghoian said, we all use the same devices. The government has the power to hack each individual device regardless of whether said device belongs to a criminal. As such, we stand at risk of unknowingly getting our devices hacked by the government. Without a congressional hearing or law, it seems that the government is being a tad bit suspicious about this software. Which makes me ask myself if it is really used only for law enforcement or does the U.S government have ulterior motives for using such software. (177 words, Loy Suan Wee, Nigel, CMM/TB01)