Since I deal with all things related to cybersecurity (a term I do not like), I need to stay up to date, threats, breaches, exploits and vulnerabilities to name but some 'terms' since the landscape is VAST... I conduct my research manually, using sources which may or may not have say a CVE so sources like MITRE, CVE, SEC org, CISA, etc to give an example, various security labs, threat modeling and other sources I can vet (not really optional), to even at times using tools to do recon, intel, forensics (depends whether investigative or not)... bottom-line, I mention this because after a considerable amount of time I can say you have done yet another amazing job, ideal for those who want the summary and a well-research one... It is strange how few views given some of the topics you addressed. I hope your channel picks up. Whether comments, views, likes, subs is still a way this platform's algorithm makes use of in terms of ranking and so on I do not know. But great job, I can refer people to this since it provides that which is most important for normal daily users.
the problem with current methods of communication is it was never meant to be secure by default. all call metadata of who is calling who, duration, time is public. the voice content and text messages is public knowledge. the data should not exist in the first place or the data should be unuseable and anonymized not to disclose any customer information at any level.
Journalist communicating exclusively through Signal don't need to worry about their source's phone # being revealed. Yes, your Signal acct is REGISTERED via a phone number, but NO telecom telephony happens between Signal users... it is 100% encrypted IP traffic. There is no way to link that encrypted IP traffic to a specific phone number... esp if you enable "Relay calls through Signal servers" in Settings. Also, would AT&T actually log every single IP packet flowing into & out of a handset? I doubt it. At BEST they are logging every DNS resolution you make (if you're dumb enough to use your carrier's default DNS servers instead of using DoH/DoT with a 3rd party provider), but I doubt they are logging traffic.
isn't AT&t all but a CIA front anyway? I got an admonishment to stick with evidence-based information before posting. The evidence I would cite is that the breakup of the Bell system was nothing more than the leasing of unsold WATS line bandwidth to create the illusion of actual competition very much like Cricket and Boost cellular are today as well as their partnership with Apple in developing the iPhone (the first several models of which were domestically restricted to use on their network despite compatibility with T-Mobile). The excuse given was to recover development costs with service subscriptions but all carriers discount phones with subscription contracts. If you went and paid cash for an iPhone at the Apple store for the first six or seven years you were stuck with AT&t. I would also argue that number portability requires centralized management which even if accomplished buy a non-profit consortium is easily just a set of bureaucrats who don't realize who's they're really working for, though admittedly that's speculation and not evidence.
@@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu projection much? Irrationality is the link between stupidity and insanity. Smart people see connections others don’t, whereas crazy people see connections that aren’t there. So smart people are unlikely to be irrational, yet people with IQs under 130 say there’s a fine line between genius and insanity. THERE’S NOT. SCHIZOPHRENIA FREQUENCY IS NEGATIVELY CORRELATED TO IQ. Nothing wrong with being in the 98% who have IQs under 130, but as I am not, you’re either not very bright or not very sane.
![[TF2] The Russian Bear Trap](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YFNSwz2_rOA/mqdefault.jpg)
Better question, why is AT&T keeping that data to start with?
Because it's legal and it's valuable
If I wanted to pay to expose all my sensitive info I’d rather just rent a billboard 😂
3:29 Retirecial question right?
All customers would include not just journalists but government officials, government employees of all kinds, etc.
The Signal and AT&T stories are wild!
Fr fr
Since I deal with all things related to cybersecurity (a term I do not like), I need to stay up to date, threats, breaches, exploits and vulnerabilities to name but some 'terms' since the landscape is VAST... I conduct my research manually, using sources which may or may not have say a CVE so sources like MITRE, CVE, SEC org, CISA, etc to give an example, various security labs, threat modeling and other sources I can vet (not really optional), to even at times using tools to do recon, intel, forensics (depends whether investigative or not)... bottom-line, I mention this because after a considerable amount of time I can say you have done yet another amazing job, ideal for those who want the summary and a well-research one... It is strange how few views given some of the topics you addressed. I hope your channel picks up. Whether comments, views, likes, subs is still a way this platform's algorithm makes use of in terms of ranking and so on I do not know. But great job, I can refer people to this since it provides that which is most important for normal daily users.
AT&T must be quivering at the thought of a letter from FCC that will tell them off.
Not your computer, not your files, remember boys, the cloud is just another man's computer
More nuanced: Don't use any cloud provider that you can't seamlessly use encrypted solutions like Borg or Restic with.
Wonder if the breach included data from government FirstNet users?
Could be worse. You could be a Cricket client 😂😂😂
I still have a hard time finding a reliable cellphone service that doesn’t need my personal information to eventually be leaked. Any recommendations?
Is hackers a synonym for the feds?
So, was this a government move? Just thinking i out loud.
They usually come out to blame them, pretty quick
the problem with current methods of communication is it was never meant to be secure by default. all call metadata of who is calling who, duration, time is public. the voice content and text messages is public knowledge. the data should not exist in the first place or the data should be unuseable and anonymized not to disclose any customer information at any level.
What the hell, Signal?
Journalist communicating exclusively through Signal don't need to worry about their source's phone # being revealed. Yes, your Signal acct is REGISTERED via a phone number, but NO telecom telephony happens between Signal users... it is 100% encrypted IP traffic. There is no way to link that encrypted IP traffic to a specific phone number... esp if you enable "Relay calls through Signal servers" in Settings. Also, would AT&T actually log every single IP packet flowing into & out of a handset? I doubt it. At BEST they are logging every DNS resolution you make (if you're dumb enough to use your carrier's default DNS servers instead of using DoH/DoT with a 3rd party provider), but I doubt they are logging traffic.
nothing juicy about signal, been like this forever, like you said. Running signal on untrustable devices is security through obscurity.
isn't AT&t all but a CIA front anyway? I got an admonishment to stick with evidence-based information before posting. The evidence I would cite is that the breakup of the Bell system was nothing more than the leasing of unsold WATS line bandwidth to create the illusion of actual competition very much like Cricket and Boost cellular are today as well as their partnership with Apple in developing the iPhone (the first several models of which were domestically restricted to use on their network despite compatibility with T-Mobile). The excuse given was to recover development costs with service subscriptions but all carriers discount phones with subscription contracts. If you went and paid cash for an iPhone at the Apple store for the first six or seven years you were stuck with AT&t.
I would also argue that number portability requires centralized management which even if accomplished buy a non-profit consortium is easily just a set of bureaucrats who don't realize who's they're really working for, though admittedly that's speculation and not evidence.
Lolz, paranoid cooc 😂😂😂
@@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu projection much? Irrationality is the link between stupidity and insanity. Smart people see connections others don’t, whereas crazy people see connections that aren’t there. So smart people are unlikely to be irrational, yet people with IQs under 130 say there’s a fine line between genius and insanity. THERE’S NOT. SCHIZOPHRENIA FREQUENCY IS NEGATIVELY CORRELATED TO IQ. Nothing wrong with being in the 98% who have IQs under 130, but as I am not, you’re either not very bright or not very sane.