cialis generico in farmacia in italia The 13 people accused of committing terrorist attacks in Bogotá in 2015. Also in this year, the news coverage of the way in which suspects of the bombs at calle 72 with carrera 10, and at carrera 13 with calle 46 were identified, includes the description of police use of information obtained from the suspects’ cell-phones. In this case, the most probable way this information was obtained is by the use of UFED; a universal forensic extraction device for mobile phones. By using software associated to this tool, they could analyze the information to establish a network of contacts. This news item recounts the various tools used by the police with similar ends, other than “hacking” tools. In this case, however, these tools were used as part of a criminal investigation.
viagra vs cialis reviews Andromeda. In 2014, news about Andromeda suggested that the military intelligence front was used to “wiretap” the negotiating teams participating in the peace process (both the guerrilla’s and the government’s) in Havana. From here, military and civilian “hackers” had gained access to emails and other information relevant to the negotiation, and it was even claimed that they had wiretapped journalists and others who opposed the peace process. Little is yet known about these activities and the tools that were used. However, in an article published today, December 9th, with our input for ENTER.CO it not only confirms that members of Andromeda were accessing information about the peace process and doing business with it, but that around the time when Andromeda operated, a Remote Control tool was used pointing at the same server that hosted the Buggly webpage -the hackerspace that served as a front for Andromeda-. This information suggests that, even though they also don’t have the power to legally do so, military intelligence officials also have the technological capacity for communications interception, and that even less is known about how they
It is clear that, contrary to what General Palomino believes, even before the details of this new scandal emerge, we know that the police not only has these capacities but also a variety of related tools. Moreover, there are a number of documented cases in which they have made use of these tools. The central problem is precisely that these tools provide such enormous capacity to intrude in people’s private lives, that their power surpasses even that of many Colombian public figures, as was shown by the Colombian security agency DAS in its well-known wiretapping case.
Communications surveillance tools are much more intrusive today than the oft-used image of a person listening in on a telephone conversation. When a telephone is tapped, one has access to someone’s communications only from the moment such interception begins until it is terminated. Current surveillance capacities allow the intruder to virtually take possession of another’s device and to know people’s online activities, read their email traffic, and have access to everything contained in the device (contacts, browsing history, files, etc.) and even control peripheral devices (turn on cameras and microphones to see and listen to its surroundings). Surveillance is maintained for an indefinite period and regardless of who is using the device (for instance, a home computer may be used by all household members). These features and their potential for abuse -which materializes with each new scandal of illegitimate surveillance of journalists, human rights advocates and political opponents- forces us to assert that not only have abusive intelligence practices not stopped, but that there are major issues with the current legal framework, which is outdated and lacking in the necessary controls to prevent the type of abuse reported here.
The analysis piece titled “When the State Hacks”, published today by Karisma Foundation, delves into the nature of these tools and their risks, and exposes how their current use by Colombian authorities is illegal. Karisma Foundation believes that the authorities must have all the necessary tools to fight crime, but they must have them under legal mandate, affording greater protections to citizens, providing legal certainty to the authorities, and aiming for some degree of trust in citizen-authority relations in order to prevent abuses and illegitimate access. General Palomino’s response is therefore rather unfortunate. It minimizes and ignores the Government’s surveillance capacity, and in particular that of the institution in his charge. More troublesome still is that by doing so he is avoiding a deeper discussion about the risks to people’s privacy associated with the use of these tools.
Karisma Foundation has published an info graph (Spanish) as well as it’s analysis of Remote Control tools as a contribution to this public discussion. If this topic is of concern to you, please share these documents with General Palomino (@GeneralPalomino), and with the members of the Intelligence Law Commission -the only body enabled to exert some control over this activity– (@jaimeduranbar @jimmychamorro @PaolaHolguin @carlosfgalan @MIgueBarretoC @OPedroorjuela @Tatacabello) by using hashtag #ElTalHackeoSíExiste so that in 2016 this debate takes place and our rights to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected.
*”Hacking” is an expression that identifies an ethic of providing access to technology to empower people, and was later understood as the activity of finding vulnerabilities in information systems, essentially with the goal of reporting them and repairing them. Finally, it began to be used in the sense of seeking vulnerabilities in information systems in order to exploit them illegally. For Karisma, the correct expression when one “hacks” to cause harm is to “crack”, so using the expression “hacking” in this sense is incorrect. However this is the popularized use. For ease of understanding, we have decided to use the term “hacking” to mean “cracking” in this document, although we are aware that this is only one of the meanings of this word.