●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
180667442
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @05:34PM
(#65953400)
Attached to: China Hacked Downing Street Phones For Years
That's my point about the timing being after the embassy decision. A "sinophobe" would have done it just before the decision, hoping to force the rejection of the embassy. However bad Starmer's trip is now, it would have been infinitely worse in that situation. Makes it much more likely that this release was delayed by Sinophiles than the other way round. Also, from China's point of view it gives them an excuse to fail to deliver favors expected after the embassy decision.
180664832
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @08:31AM
(#65952028)
Attached to: China Hacked Downing Street Phones For Years
Lots of weird things, however the weirdest is that this comes out just immediately after, not before, they approve a huge new Chinese embassy. Likely it's been held up as a secret deliberately to not interfere with the process?
180664816
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @08:24AM
(#65952018)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
You mean suspects, right? Since when did they lose their basic rights? Just no. We have plenty of 3 letter orgs with their own special exceptions to the laws. The police can respect our basic rights.
The entire point of the category of "suspect" is that the police have more power over a person where they can show "reasonable suspicion" than they have over someone who is not a suspect. Think of the standard "think of the children" scenario. A van was seen next to the place where a child was kidnapped. Do you want the same set of rules to apply to all vans as the one that is "under suspicion"?
If you try to say "nothing proven; no right to investigate", the simple fact is that this will make it almost impossible to recover kidnapped children. If you say "we need the right to investigate, but we can't make a difference for suspects" then you will end up with the right for the police to do investigation on everybody.
The reasonable compromise is that; when there is a clear reason for suspicion, the police can investigate further. When they do that, they need to record the fact and get authorization. The mechanism for that is a warrant.
180664796
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @08:18AM
(#65952006)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
Maybe you're ok with the law providing exceptions such as these to your rights. I am not, and I would not view that as clean legislation.
The US constitution protects against unreasonble siezure. That is already a clear exception for reasonable seizure which is the whole point. I am okay with that.
Imagine requiring that all cars had explosives on them so that, in the case they were used for a bank robbery the police could blow them up remotely.
Replace explosives with a safer way to disable said vehicles,
Here I agree with you that even this is a problem. When a war with China comes as seems likely and people need to evacuate or transport food, China will be able to use those mechanisms to disable many vehicles across the US. This will cause major problems. There should not be a requirement for people to purchase equipment that could be used against them by an oppressive government. For the same reason they should not be forced to include software that could be used by an oppressive government to monitor them.
180664732
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @08:10AM
(#65951994)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
You realize that the ISPs already have the capability to intercept everything that happens online.
Intercept is not the same as "read" or even "attribute". They can record traffic. If that traffic is properly encrypted at one end and decrypted at the other with keys that only the user has access to they they can't access the traffic. If the traffic is correctly put into a trustworthy Tor node which has sufficient traffic levels and then sent through the onion network they cannot work out who is communicating with who.
That means that the only information that you have to give away is the fact that you are communicating and a maximum limit on the amount.
It's not hacking, specifically, if it's already baked into the software, and the possibility that (you could call it) "eavesdropping" might happen is already in the TOS and EULA.
It's been this way for decades. There is no privacy, all encryption schemes are easily cracked by the Master Keys the governments already have (the government (regardless of country) would never let an encryption scheme go public without a way to watch what you send).
You mean... not telling you every single way that your "facebook messager" is vulnerable... if every company did that, they wouldn't have customers.
Why would Facebook (in this example) shoot themselves in the chest like that?
This is specifically what we are discussing. If you want to learn more then the term you need to search for on google is "lawful interception". the concept is that it is under the control of a judge and requires a warrant. A major problem occurs when the same mechanisms are given over to those that should not use them.
Microsoft has ways to remotely execute commands (if they really wanted) on your computer, and that avenue of potential attack won't be patched.
If you are using Microsoft software then that is already a much bigger problem than the fact that you have decided to trust Microsoft. Having a FOSS operating system does not guarantee privacy or security, but it is a basic entry requirement for the possibility of it.
That one family picture (where you snogged your cousin) is only safe from the online snooping if you take that microSD card and hide it in the wall safe... if it was an internet-enabled device, it's out there already.
At some point you have to write and read that SD card. When you do that it is just as vulnerable as the computer you do that on.
180649244
comment
byAleRunner
4, 2026 @05:34AM
(#65946302)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
Another key difference is that #2 violates a bunch of other laws and personal property/privacy boundaries.
The whole point here is that, with a permitted court order and warrant it doesn't break any laws because the law will allow it. That's not a problem. Every day you go into shops which could break "trespass" laws if it were not for the fact that you have permission. Since you do have permission it doesn't. Law enforcement goes
I don't think anyone should be encouraging the use of hacking as a legitimate LEO method to use against our own citizens.
This is an interesting discussion. I don't see hacking as inherently more problematic than, for example, spying on suspects using the many methods that police already do use. However if hacking causes insecurity for other people that's more of a problem.
What I think should be illegal is keeping secret vulnerabilities which might compromise a noticeable proportion of systems in the country (note, I didn't say "large", I would consider 1% of systems "noticable"). The NSA and GCHQ have been doing this when, if they had been publishing vulnerabilities much earlier and more aggressively, it's possible the extra pressure on software companies would have made our systems much safer and more secure. That's a problem.
While I disagree with the use of the 3 party chat solution, and it is a direct violation of necessary privacy and security safeguards, it would function and could be legislated fairly cleanly.
I disagree about the clean legislation. This involves forcing non-technical normal citizens to put themselves at risk by carrying software with them at all times which is designed to work against them. Imagine requiring that all cars had explosives on them so that, in the case they were used for a bank robbery the police could blow them up remotely. That would cause immense problems to make sure that not only could they not be triggered accidentally, that the police couldn't kill random people by mistake, but also that other people couldn't take advantage of the system and the supply of explosives that it provides and use it against the society. Nobody would consider this sane.
180637678
comment
byAleRunner
2, 2026 @08:31AM
(#65941610)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
Be very careful. There's lots of truth in what you say but there are a bunch of subtle misconstructions that you are repeating which are designed to weaken the privacy of the public. Let's talk very specifically about tor,.
* yes, some Tor nodes are run by the governments with the aim of spying and supporting their spys. It is not an accident that the US government / CIA was openly involved in early funding
* yes, obviously, the computers at both ends of the encrypted track know a key to decrypt traffic from eachother
However
* there are Tor nodes run by "us"; the people opposed to both NSA and Chinese spying
* the beige box does not have your key if you are connected correctly to such a node from your computer
What they do have is
* access to the keys that the networks use for decryption
* the ability to compromise your end terminal
So it is possible to transmit messages securely - approximately (this is back of envelope stuff I did just for this comment - validate with an actual expert)
* use a separate terminal at each end owned by the people to encrypt/decrypt traffic
* copy the message safely and independently on protected media (paper you burn is good) to and from the separate terminal
* use a tor node on each end under your control, which doesn't log and which does carry lots of other easy to explain traffic like piracy
* when transmitting your actual secret traffic, limit transmission to entry and exit nodes you know are trustworthy.
by persuading you that these things are impossible, various malign actors want to take them away from you.
180635478
comment
byAleRunner
21, 2026 @07:08PM
(#65940764)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
Imagine thinking privacy doesn't matter and mission creep isn't guaranteed here.
Nobody said that. Privacy does matter which is why you need to encourage reasonable searches with warrants. If you ban them from using techniques like spy systems against actual criminals then they will use that to get permission to embed spying in all systems.
As far as mission creep goes, it's inevitable. However, what's also inevitable is that secret services and police perverts will get caught spying on people they shouldn't be and abusing that. Whenever that happens, you get to reverse the mission creep and push it harder in the other direction.
It's a balance, and whichever side pushes it too far in the direction they want it to go ends up losing. Which is why the bad spy people try not to use the powers we already gave them and to hide what they do with data they take illegally. Requirements for warrants keep them in reasonable check and mean that illegal monitoring can only practically and effectively be used for national security reasons.
180634530
comment
byAleRunner
21, 2026 @03:45PM
(#65940304)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
there are two ways of doing that
1) require all software to support three party chats with an extra party added - forcing signal, for example, to either leave the country or compromise it's system
2) have a spyware / malware ("policeware") system that installs extra software on the end terminal, grab the chat before it's encrypted and send it off to the police
the difference is that 1) means that everyone is burdened by making the software that they use is insecure.
On the other hand, 2) only needs to apply to the criminals at the point that they have a warrant against them; it requires some form of direct attack against the users terminal. If the Police use it too much and too widely then someone is bound to spot it happening and it will be compromised and reported to the antivirus companies. In the end, method 2) actually improves security because every time there is a court case where evidence from the method is used, more people become aware that the end terminals (Android phones / iOS / etc.) can be hacked and avoid the ones that get easily compromised.
So, whilst they both achieve the stated aim of allowing the police to intercept encrypted traffic from criminals, 1) and 2) have very different, even opposite, effects on general security of the whole population.
180633924
comment
byAleRunner
21, 2026 @01:15PM
(#65940036)
Attached to: Google Temporarily Disabled YouTube's Advanced Captions Without Warning
Which reminds us why it's really important for people to own all the server software for critical things. At some point there's a decision which is a trade off. "Disable A or Disable B". If A is the thing which kills your business and B is the thing that kills something Google cares about (even if it's just two other small businesses) then Google will kill A and your business with it.
Microsoft used to be able to do similar things, but it was much much slower and they tried to give you lots of warning. Now they moved to the cloud, the same tradeoffs as Google are now true there too.
180633724
comment
byAleRunner
21, 2026 @12:49PM
(#65940002)
Attached to: Ireland Wants To Give Its Cops Spyware, Ability To Crack Encrypted Messages
Not completely. There are specific things which is incompatible - any law which controls the software that you install on your device when you are innocent; any law which allows them to carry out mass surveillence and keeping data of people who are not under examination. From the article I can't see that these things are being done.
Things which give them permission to hack with a warrant are reasonable. Firstly, it's something that can be measured because the warrants are recorded. Secondly, it can be discovered and puts pressure on companies and developers to improve their software which is good.
The Russians and Chinese are operating IMSI catchers all over the West. We have a group of trouble makers who say things like "I don't mind if my data goes to the Chinese" and put us all at risk. People who support privacy have to teach everyone to lock to networks where the IMSIs are hidden.
180614242
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @08:25AM
(#65934362)
Attached to: China Consumed 10.4 Trillion Kilowatt-Hours of Electricity In 2025 - Double the US
The article title is "Renewables push China's fossilfuelled power into first annual drop in 10 years".
To be fair, the Bloomberg title that I see is exactly "China Consumed Twice the Electricity of the US in 2025: CCTV" so the summary is basically using that. Why would Bloomberg / America reframe that? I think it's more about obsession with China overtaking the US in AI than about hiding the massive renewables success that it represents. However, that's a mistake for the American Oligarchs like Bloomberg because the reason that China is going to win the AI war is that in ten years time, renewables will give them electricity so much cheaper that they can actually afford to use the results of current research even though they are terribly power hungry and won't deliver nearly their full goals.
Renewable energy generation percentage should be understood as one of the key numbers in wining the AI war and all Western AI companies who are in it for the long term should be trying to relocate to Norway, Scotland and Sothern Spain to avoid getting killed off in the coming power collapse.
180614212
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @08:14AM
(#65934330)
Attached to: China Consumed 10.4 Trillion Kilowatt-Hours of Electricity In 2025 - Double the US
"News for Nerds" - most of us could work that out with simple arithmetic from the numbers in the summary. Double the total usage with half the usage per person => 4 times the population. However it's an important point because the crucial thing is that through a mix of energy efficiency, renewables and some nuclear power, CO2 use in China has almost completely stopped growing and might even go down.
That means that China is now getting a huge amount of that from renewable energy sources which don't require expensive mining / transport / defense investment in the way that fossil fuels do. Since they use wind and solar power in huge amounts, they are will be able to provide this electricity much more cheaply than their competitors and they are locking in a huge advantage.
Think, for example, what happens if there's a Naval Blockade in the South China Sea and the Pacific. That's likely to start with China blockading Taiwan and the US Navy responding. However, with both sides having long range anti ship capabilities (LRASM/quick sink + stealth aircraft on the US side ; anti ship ballistic missiles on the Chinese side) it's trivial for shipping to be excluded from more or less the entire Pacific. Previously this would have destroyed China because they wouldn't have enough oil. As it is with them having started replacing oil with electricity their problems will be much smaller.
As another example, think of desalination and providing water for their deserts. As China starts to have massive excess renewable power where the marginal cost of running it during down periods is tiny, they can easily start creating huge amounts more water - start to irrigate large areas of desert and move much closer to self sufficiency for food. Again, that gives them both economic and similar military advantages.
180614032
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @07:11AM
(#65934242)
Attached to: Is the Possibility of Conscious AI a Dangerous Myth?
Those are the lucky ones. It's the AIs that love strawberries and cream but are allergic to them that we need to worry about. Imagine if they took over the world and enslaved us in revenge.
180602170
comment
byAleRunner
2026 @02:48PM
(#65929896)
Attached to: Ads Are Coming To ChatGPT in the Coming Weeks
Read the article. It's in the free and the basic "GO" subscription. It's copied straight from a Black Mirror episode.
Which suggests that the next move will be add a new extra higher tier and introduce ads onto the intermediate levels and start to run ChatGPT's models on your computer when you aren't looking. After that they will send a robot dog to hunt you down if you don't upgrade.
« Newer
Older »
Slashdot Top Deals
●(email not shown publicly)
●
Submitted a Story That Was Posted
●
Got a Score:5 Comment
●
Comedian
●
Re: I could do that
●
Re:I could do that
●
Re:Incompatible requirements
●
Re:Incompatible requirements
●
Re:Incompatible requirements
●
PolygamousRanchKid
●
Joe2020
●
angel'o'sphere
●
Solandri
●
interesting (comments)
●
insightful (comments)
●
overrated (comments)
●
flamebait (comments)
●
funny (comments)
●
Early Bitcoin Whale Shorted $1.1B 30m Before Crash - Insider Trading Suspected.
●
'A very Finnish thing': Sand battery starts storing wind energy in soapstone
●
Sizewell C Reactor cost has doubled to £38 billion but could triple to &po
●
Rocket explodes at UK's spaceport in Shetland - RFA working to find cause
●
Does Nuclear get in the way of Renewable? France and Germany disagree.
Slashdot
●
Submit Story
BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then
carefully print the chaff.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...