Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'snoop'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 2 results

  1. The Indian government said on Tuesday that it is “empowered” to intercept, monitor, or decrypt any digital communication “generated, transmitted, received, or stored” on a citizen’s device in the country in the interest of national security or to maintain friendly relations with foreign states. Citing section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, Minister of State for Home Affairs G. Kishan Reddy said local law empowers federal and state government to “intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence.” Reddy’s remarks were in response to the parliament, where a lawmaker had asked if the government had snooped on citizens’ WhatsApp, Messenger, Viber, and Google calls and messages. The lawmaker’s question was prompted after 19 activists, journalists, politicians, and privacy advocates in India revealed earlier this month that their WhatsApp communications may have been compromised. WhatsApp has said that Israeli spyware manufacturer NSO’s tools have been used to send malware to 1,400 users. The Facebook-owned company has in recent weeks alerted users whose accounts had been compromised. The social juggernaut earlier this month sued NSO alleging that its tools were being used to hack WhatsApp users. NSO has maintained that it only sells its tools to government and intelligence agencies, an assertion that stoked fear among some that the state could be behind targeting the aforementioned 19 people — and perhaps more — in the country. Reddy did not directly address the questions, but in a blanket written statement said that “authorized agencies as per due process of law, and subject to safeguards as provided in the rules” can intercept or monitor or decrypt “any information from any computer resource” in the country. He added that each case of such interception has to be approved by the Union Home Secretary (in case of federal government) and by the Home Secretary of the State (in case of state government.) Last month, the Indian government said it was moving ahead with its plan to revise existing rules to regulate intermediaries — social media apps and others that rely on users to create their content — as they are causing “unimaginable disruption” to democracy. It told the country’s apex court that it would formulate the rules by January 15 of next year. A report published today by New Delhi-based Software Law and Freedom Centre (SFLC) found that more than 100,000 telephone interception are issued by the federal government alone every year. “On adding the surveillance orders issued by the state governments to this, it becomes clear that India routinely surveils her citizens’ communications on a truly staggering scale,” the report said. The non-profit organization added that the way current laws that enable law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance on citizens’ private communications are “opaque” as they are run “solely by the executive arm of the government, and make no provisions for independent oversight of the surveillance process.” Source
  2. A New Jersey woman has sued T-Mobile in state court last week for sexual harassment, invasion of privacy, and other counts. She claims that, when she went to trade in her iPhone 7 at a store, two male employees rifled through her photos without her consent. The men allegedly quickly found a private naked video of the woman, referred to in the complaint as "N.E.," and played it for themselves. The woman was mortified. Ars contacted T-Mobile, which did not respond to our questions. "We take customer privacy extremely seriously and are investigating the claims," a spokesperson wrote, declining to elaborate. Ars also contacted Lorena Ahumada, an attorney for T-Mobile, who did not respond. Justin Sachs, the manager of this particular T-Mobile store at the Hamilton Mall in Mays Landing, just outside of Atlantic City, told Ars that he wanted to apologize to N.E. "We know that it's unacceptable, to be going through a customer's private information," he told Ars. "Any confidential information, finding out something you accidentally clicked on." Sachs said that he has worked for Executive Cellular Phones, the contracted company that runs this store, for five years, and is unaware of any similar incidents. He also said that T-Mobile investigators reviewed internal surveillance video but was not able to definitively determine if the two men accessed N.E.'s phone. Since the incident, Sergio, one of men, still works at the store. Another one, Victor, resigned from the store in December to take a new job. "How would you feel about that, if without your permission, someone was rifling through your phone?" Sachs tells new employees, underscoring that it is potentially a fireable offense. Numerous similar cases have been reported in recent years nationwide. In August 2018, a Wisconsin man who worked at a Verizon store involved in a similar criminal case was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation. Saved by AirPods? In an interview with Ars, N.E. laid out her story. It began last November, just days before Thanksgiving, when she walked into the store. She works in another part of the same mall and sought advice on a possible iPhone upgrade. Once in the T-Mobile store, N.E. saw another woman that she was acquainted with. This acquaintance, who worked in the store, directed her to two male employees. N.E.'s phone was broken: the screen was cracked and the microphone had stopped working, so she relied constantly on her wireless AirPods. The men seemed to be helpful at first, and one offered to do a trade-in for her, telling her that she could upgrade to a newer iPhone XR for just $90. They asked her to unlock her phone and disable Find My iPhone to begin the data transfer to a new device. She did so and stepped away to consider the various XR color options. Then, all of a sudden, she could hear in the AirPods—the men may not have known she was wearing them, as her long hair covered the headphones—a distinct sound. N.E. turned around and marched up to the men, grabbing her phone from one of them. "He probably saw me coming," she told Ars. "So I started going through all my pictures and my videos, and I replayed them. When you go to the camera roll, that video—you can spot it. There are so many squares, and there is one that you can see what it is. One video was very obvious what it was." N.E. described the video in general terms to Ars and acknowledged that it showed her naked. The video was only meant to be seen by one other person, her fiancé. N.E. was mortified and left the store immediately in tears. As a recent immigrant from the Middle East, she particularly didn't want her parents to know that she had filmed such an intimate video and, worse, had kept it on her phone where others could find it. "I didn't want anyone in the store to know anything was wrong," she said. "I didn't want to make a big deal out of it." But after a few moments, N.E. returned to the store and went straight to her female acquaintance and asked to simply finish her transaction. She didn't confront the men. The transfer took some time, and she even stayed until after the store had closed until it was complete. The men didn't approach N.E. "It didn't even bother them, as if I was nothing," she continued. "I felt worthless because, hello, I'm a human being and this is something that's very private. It's like I'm not important. I felt powerless, because I couldn't say anything about it in the moment." Multiple defendants N.E. told her fiancé what had happened, and he was outraged. The fiancé called T-Mobile's customer service, expressing grave concern over the violation of customer privacy and worry that this video may have been further shared without N.E.'s consent. But after being passed on to another T-Mobile representative, Michael, the fiancé was ultimately unsatisfied as to the company's response. T-Mobile had promised him investigate surveillance footage from the store and conduct further inquiry, but the company seems to have made no effort to do so. "[T-Mobile was] treating it like someone had walked into the store and wasn't greeted well," N.E. told Ars. Eventually, N.E. found attorneys and filed her lawsuit on January 11, 2019. In addition to T-Mobile, the case also names as defendants: Executive Cellular Phones, the company that contracts with T-Mobile to run that store; one of the two men, Victor; and the other man whose identity remains unidentified in the civil complaint. One of N.E.'s attorneys, Christian McOmber, told Ars that it was difficult to know what the end result would be for a case like this. "It's difficult to give any financial estimate, because cases are settled," he said. "In some ways this is a new frontier. Now the court systems are catching up." But, he noted, his firm would be aggressive. "You can't harass somebody who is trying to do business with you," McOmber added. "We're looking for significant compensation for her, because concrete doesn't fix sidewalks. Judgements fix sidewalks. T-Mobile needs to take responsibility for their operators. They need to be responsible for their services, for the training, for the qualification, and their oversight, and here they've neglected to do all of that." Source
×
×
  • Create New...