Windows built by design to be a spy

I wonder what you guys think about the following statements. There are some pretty heavy stuff but I can't help to acknowledge some truth out there. So here we go:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=29419.0

Quotes:

There is info about TEMPEST and power-surveillance which is blowing my mind.

 

i remember reading something like this a while back.
the bitlocker excryptions for example can be defeated by special usb keys the goverment has. wont take much for the aderage joe to get one and copy the data on to new usb stick and sell them on for loads.
the reason windows gets exploited so often is because its used by so many people. once more and more people use linux and OSX they will get exploited alot as well.

 

Before this thing even gets started (I know what's coming because I went through it in another thread), this is a very old topic. People have worried about this for years, and, here's the truth: Windows is so exploitable Microsoft didn't NEED to give the government a backdoor. The damn thing keeps a record of every cough the computer coughs and it keeps those records all over Gods creation in the system. That's not conspiracy, that's just stupidity on Microsofts' part.

Look, quit worrying about backdoors in Windows and start worrying about the REAL problem, which is wiretapping your phones, snooping on your internet communications, and hackers tapping in to your hospitals and credit card companies databases and stealing your entire life from you in minutes. All THAT is real, proven, and in the case of wiretapping and snooping, legal.

 

Windows 3.1 on through windows XP just is not designed for security, but there has been improvement. Just not enough, some of us like to comeup with these theories why Windows is still so security lacking. But thats down to Microsoft .

 

Not surprising.

You won't find a more comprehensive copying machine thats ever been built then Windows, it logs i venture to say nearly every motion and interaction that goes on inside it, and all that before you even tap a key or mouse.

 

Do you use Windows, Easter?

 

Does not Google still keep every search performed, and the IP Addresses and Browser used associated with that search, indefinitely?

 

I'm sure they do. They probably keep more than we'd prefer

 

Thanks for the answers.

Everyone seems quite cool about it. I for one was shocked to read that Microsoft "repeatedly stated publicly" that "Windows itself is intentionally designed to permit...". Me never heard about it and wanted to confirm this creepy story. I don't even want to start to imagine what is done with Vista. Better stay with XP for now.

And for the other stuff like power surveillance - I'll need more time to absorb it..

 

I guess though that for the duration that Returnil is running that Windows cannot keep records of anything.

Will that screenshot (archive) program "first defense"? erase the records that Windows keeps?

 

None other my friend, it's been a mainstay since Windows 98 first came out, nothing more, nothing less. It's an exciting framework to do activities on in spite of security holes which by the way are covered to the hilt courtesy all these security developers who've fashioned these incredible protections for it.

EASTER

 

You have the most amazing set of security softewares. I am a beginner but I am using Returnil and Sandboxie and and I love it. I want to try the "first defense" program next. I am going to google the other ones that you have listed. Thanks for all that you share.

 

Hello,

A load of bollocks.

I like the use of "government" as in "the government" - the one and only ... whose government? Albanian? Micropolynesian (joke)?

Let's not forget that most governmental institutions in quite a few parts of the world use *nix based machinery - not desktops, the real stuff.

And now a proof why this is bollocks:

- If you use router, Windows "spies" cannot use its "special" port to communicate with Area 51.
- If you use a packet sniffer, you get absolute zero suspicious activity ever recorded between Windows "spies" and Star Gate SG 1 command.
- If you use an outbound software firewall, it miraculously stops dead in their tracks all the subverted 1984-type packets heading for Roswell 1947.

BTW, the writer admits he's paranoid, so ...

Mrk

P.S. I don't like MS that much, but let's be reasonable ...

 

- So using wireless internet instead of cable is safer?

- What is a packet sniffer? Is it something that requires special technical knowledge to use?

- As a firewall, I use Zone Alarm free. Do you think that will suffice?

As for paranoia, I think that is worrying about something without cause. I am not so sure that this is the case anymore. Internet activity appears to be a "free for all". No one's boundaries are respected or protected. I think that personal internet should be treated like the US Mail. Thou shalt not tamper.

 

Sadly... Vista with its extensive DRM technology was probably designed more than any other OS before it for this purpose.

 

Hello,

Using cable / wireless is pretty much the same. Easier to sniff wireless connections, but nothing dramatic.

Packet sniffer is a tool that allows you to monitor packets. It does require some basic networking knowledge, at the very least.

ZA is a good firewall. Are you safe? From what? Yourself? No. Earthquakes? No. Mumbo-jumbo hacking? Yes.

Don't confuse getting self-infected and getting hacked, two different things.

Internet has always been free. That's its magic and curse.

Mrk

 

No, all that DRM crap is not for spying, it's there to show you that you may have bought Windows, those movies, or that music, but you don't own them. They are "licensed out" for your use. That's all DRM was, is, and shall be.

@MrkVonic, now why on earth would they send your data to Area 51? That's used to test aircraft mainly, lol. Now the NSA, THEY wouldn't mind sneaking a peek

 

So what you are saying is that DRM technology that is used to track your program application, music, video, etc... licensing and usage can't in any way be used as a privacy threat?

....and using the same reasoning if you install software that is supposed to be "security software" it isn't a privacy threat simply because it SAYS that its "security software".

You also seem to be implying that you understand exactly what went into the Vista code and what its capabilities are with enough certainty to say that it could not be used to spy on you?

It's good to know you seem to have all this specific knowledge about Vista and what its DRM technology is capable of because I sure don't.

What I do believe is that.... Vista....with its extensive DRM technology is "probably" designed "more than any other OS before it"... to be capable of spying. I believe this was not an afterthought by MS.... It was purposefully designed with these types of capabilities. Whether it actually is currently being used for the purpose of spying by MS, governments, companies, etc... is another question.

 

Anyone know what PSI's (Performance Systems International Inc. PSINETA) real business is ? Just wondering why I have been connected to this IP range automatically when Browsing some forums. Lets see... For example While browsing the Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Forums. Just wondering what this corporation (located in Washington, DC.) real business is. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic74030-15.html

 

Damage control time, lol. First, no I did not mean to imply I had all this specific knowledge of DRM's inner workings and I sure as hell don't (and don't ever want to) know the inner workings of Vista. What I only meant was that DRM is the physical way of showing what the EULA of software say, that you do not own anything you buy in the software world. The makers of the software decide what you can and can't do with it (hence why DRM is often bypassed and you get to download all the latest, greatest software/music/movies with that lovely little thing called Bittorrent).

DRM itself (I believe, and if it does, I have no idea how) cannot "spy" on you./ All it can do is, in the case of music/movies, when you play the file, report back to ITunes/Rhapsody/whatever movie website you rent downlaods from, report to the server whether you have a valid license to play the file or not. If you do, it plays, if you don't, it A: won't play and that's it, or B: automatically deletes the file. It's also used to prevent copying of the file to another computer/portable device/P2P, though we know how that usually works out.

If you're worried about privacy threats/spying, look at your ISP, not your software. Your ISP collects and maintains FAR more data than Windows ever will.

 

Well, looking them up, I get this:http://www.psilimited.com/. "International human capital consulting"...smells like ad-serving to me.

 

There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what you are claiming "DRM" to be, what I mean when I use the term "Vista and its extensive DRM technology" and what the actual definition of the term "DRM" is.

From your posts you seem to be stating that "DRM" is a clearly defined universal technology...similar to other computer and internet technological standards such as "TCP/IP".

It is my understanding that the most common current definition of "DRM" is nothing more than it is a general term used to describe an implementation of rights management technology.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

"Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term that refers to access control technologies used by hardware manufacturers, publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices."

When I use the term "Vista and its extensive DRM technology" I am referring to both the Vista OS and the DRM technology that MS developed for it.

Since neither you nor I know exactly what the DRM technology's capabilities are in Vista and how it could possibly be a privacy threat then it is all speculation on our part. Based on my current general understanding of DRM and as you stated regarding the EULA for Vista I am concerned about Vista and its implementation of DRM.

However my main point in my first reply to you was that you seem to be saying that you fully trust DRM in general or at least you seem to trust MS's implementation of DRM in Vista. You seem to show have allot of trust in something that you really know little about other than what MS has told you. What I am saying is that I do not completely trust any technology (especially DRM) that was purposely designed to constantly monitor program and file usage and send that information out from my computer to request authentication and licensing of it.

In regards to your comment "Your ISP collects and maintains FAR more data than Windows ever will"... It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. I don't see how the mere existence of one possible privacy threat negates the importance of all other possible privacy threats.

I don't know of any way of more clearly explaining my view about this but I hope now my posts regarding "Vista DRM" are a little easier to understand.

 

DRM IS a privacy threat because it does report what you have a license for and what you don't, that's as simple as it gets. It IS a control mechanism, whether in ITunes, NetFlix, or any version of Windows. It is nothing more than that. I can't explain myself in any simpler terms either. And as far my comment about ISP's being ridiculous, regardless of other privacy threats it IS a bigger threat than DRM. DRM reports licenses for software, ISP's have access to everything you do on the internet, and, if so inclined, turns that data over to 3rd parties, courts. DRM is the least of worries these days, look through more of the topics in this section of the forum.

 

Once again...DRM is not a computing "standard" any more than antivirus software is a security "standard".....and as referenced in my previous post..."Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term". No one can make general statements about "DRM" and whether or not it is a threat any more than they can say that "antivirus software" protects your computer. It may or may not be a threat depending on what its capabilities are an how it is implemented. I was specifically talking about "Vista and its extensive DRM" and not DRM as a general term. If you know exactly what Vista's DRM capabilities are then you could know if it is a privacy threat or not. What we do know for certain is that MS purposefully implemented extensive DRM technology in Vista. I am only saying that "in my opinion" the possibility for DRM privacy threats with Vista and the possibility that its DRM technology could be used for spying (by MS, govt., companies, etc.) is greater than previous OS's.

BTW I am not the only one concerned about Vista DRM and DRM technologies as a possible threat to privacy...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/137404/study_says_drm_violates_canadian_privacy_law.html

..."DRM systems themselves do not invade privacy, as all it really does is encrypt a piece of media and issue a licence for it," Levy said. "Of course, there are other processes around that which are kind of linked to the DRM system that involve collecting data, but those systems have been in place on the Web for awhile and for some reason their remote attachment to DRM is what everybody is sensitive about."

 

Ok, good article, and it proved my point even further. DRM means jack, DRM is NOT sending personal information to anyone except ITune, Microsoft, whoever. The COMPANIES are sending that data elsewhere. You're associating technology with business practices. How much more proof do you need? DRM does NOTHING else but report back on licenses and prevent copying. Good God folks, quit worrying about nonsense like this and worry about where the information you send to companies is going. Vista DRM is no different than any DRM, differently implemented, maybe, different function, nope. I don't need to be an expert in DRM to know that, all I need to do is look up DRM and find out what it's used for.

P.S, the statement about not being able to say antivirus software protects your computer is complete bull. Avast warns me about a virus infected page before I download the page, I click Terminate Connection, Avast saves me, proof enough for me. We're not talking about terminology, we're talking about technology. It doesn't matter what you call DRM, the fact is it performs the same function regardless of it's name or implementation. I might not know Vista's full DRM capability, but there are lots of people that have already looked into it and they know, and I don't hear any "OMG they see me!" coming from them.

All this "sky is falling" crap about DRM is coming from people who don't want to get busted downloading the newest Britney Spears album (people looking for that album should be jailed anyway just for wanting to hear it). This 3rd party business is in every piece of software you download, buy from stores, all of that. Ever hear of ad revenue? All the rage today. How about not worrying about copy protection and worrying about Phorm, ransomware. identity theft and all that? Much more worthy worries.