Nsa chat yahoo latina women dating black men
It’s essentially—they were actually complaining at length in the documents about just how many of these images were sexually explicit.
I mean, we know they were capturing—this program ran for years and might still be going.
They’re warned, “Hey, you know, if you don’t want to see something nasty, don’t use this database.” But I think it kind of shows how concerning it is.
Is your privacy only violated when an actual human analyst looks at an adult picture of you, or is just the very idea of the British government or the American government having this huge store of compromising pictures itself a bit creepy? And , every document we saw on this, suggested they weren’t trying to use these, they weren’t wanting to look at them.
) may have peered into the lives of millions of Internet users who were not suspected of wrongdoing.
The surveillance program codenamed “Optic Nerve” compiled still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and stored them in the GCHQ’s databases with help from the .
I think the big questions have to be asked for the cable companies, and, you know, whether the ones who put—pipe the Internet into our house or the industrial ones. We know from documents that they really do a lot to help the cable-tapping operations that power all of these other programs.
And if I was really looking to ask companies questions about secret deals and who’s getting cash and who might be not just doing what they have to, but a bit further, it’s the cable companies I’d be asking.
But it does seem as if they helped build automated or semi-automated systems to make it easy.If you were using a webcam to have a chat, it just grabbed images from it as you did it. And, yes, they were—they were very surprised and alarmed. They’ve been one of the tech companies that’s really pushed for reform.There are other programs which discuss sort of turning on the webcam for targets, but however you feel about that, at least that’s just people they suspect. I mean, I think we have to say, if Yahoo had been more secure at the time, if they’d have encrypted people’s chats, if they’d have had that level of concern about people’s privacy, they could have prevented this. And you can see from their statement they are not happy about this. They declined, but did send us a statement saying, quote, “We were not aware of nor would we condone this reported activity.And, you know, people were saying at the time they should do it. This report, if true, represents a whole new level of violation of our users’ privacy that is completely unacceptable and we strongly call on the world’s governments to reform surveillance law consistent with the principles we outlined in December.We are committed to preserving our users’ trust and security and continue our efforts to expand encryption across all of our services.” That’s what they said.