I'm reading "exploit", "chips", "hardware", "backbone", "cookies", and "encryption", but not seeing a coherent argument or evidence that we mean the same things when we use these words. NSA is not getting "backbone corporations" to create "exploits".
I guess I'm not qualified to speak on this subject, I can't say anything without sounding like a newb. The NSA requires Google, wireless operators, everybody who has or transmits data, to hand it over assembly-line fashion and that's not an 'exploit'. But if I managed to do that, it would be.
So the NSA doesn't get labeled as a rogue hacker or exploit-creator because, well, because of semantics.
Comments
I'm reading "exploit", "chips", "hardware", "backbone", "cookies", and "encryption", but not seeing a coherent argument or evidence that we mean the same things when we use these words. NSA is not getting "backbone corporations" to create "exploits".
I'm confused too. Which of these things (http://www.wnyc.org/story/running-list-what-we-know-nsa-can-...) are exploits and which 'implants'? Why does it matter? What is the NSA doing that is worth all that?
I guess I'm not qualified to speak on this subject, I can't say anything without sounding like a newb. The NSA requires Google, wireless operators, everybody who has or transmits data, to hand it over assembly-line fashion and that's not an 'exploit'. But if I managed to do that, it would be.
So the NSA doesn't get labeled as a rogue hacker or exploit-creator because, well, because of semantics.