The article is somewhat lengthy. Not surprising considering the complex topic. I do wish they would just list a few of the most poisonous, malware laden websites to stay away from. That’s all I want to know, not the history behind the sites.
Yes it’s quite complex. What I took most notice of is if you are attempting to send confidential information that you do not want others to have access to, government agencies have no problem using whatever means necessary to acquire it if they wish.
I have worked with many companies in Silicon Valley, some of which were small startups, and competing companies acquiring proprietary information would be a severe blow indeed to most if not all of them.
Considering that the IRS, DOJ, and certain Democratic Politicians are quite interested in information they can use to damage and discredit individuals and political groups they wish to see destroyed, this is not a good development.
I mean, crikey! We already hear about stories from people whose ex-’s work for the IRS who get audited year after year, as well as some companies and conservative groups. Then we have Democratic politicians directing government agencies to target those who disagree with them or who they hold a personal dislike for.
This does not bode well for the future.
Sorry, I meant to reply to you sooner.
The article, while most informative, is not meant to delve into the specific details of which websites, domains, or nodes to stay away from.
Rather, it points out that despite the efforts of many the feebs are casually using methods considered unacceptable to the general public, due to their focus on personal data and confidential information.
Aside from the hypocrisy, and the fact that many of the communications considered to be private between the relevant parties have been snooped upon by them, they have NO problem with casually using whatever means necessary to hack into them.
It bears scrutiny, no?
More about the 'laws for thee and not for me" mentality than anything else.