in the sense that both parties are aware of its presence on the phone, it’s not spyware. But in the sense that it records everything you do and reports it to another party, through a third-party server, it certainly is spyware.
"Spyware" is software that the user is unaware of. He is aware of it. And so is his accountability partner. It is irresponsible to call it spyware, as that is not at all how the term is accepted and used. "Spyware" intends to take information unwittingly, and presumably with the purpose of using it for personal gain at the expense of the person's stolen info. Every definition I can find uses the word "malicious" to describe what spyware is/does.
It is far more accurate to call it logging software. It logs activity. That log can be reviewed.
It is certainly fair to have concern that someone in any position of authority or power, (especially those privy to sensitive, protected, and/or classified information) is having their digital device activity logged and stored on a 3rd party's server. Certainly raise that alarm. I agree with that. But this is not spyware.
Also, if he has gone through any of the security clearance procedure I and many others have, he will be totally unable to access anything classified through that device without violating law. He'll know that, he'll be trained on that. Even without him publicly announcing he uses CE, those responsible for authorizing his clearance know full well he is using CE and know full well what it does and does not do.
If your employer installs a key logger on your computer, recording every single thing you typed so they could examine it later to make sure you’re being a good and loyal employee, but told you about it, would you still consider that spying?
also, the notion that anyone in this current administration is paying any attention to proper security procedures is kind of laughable.
It is not spying if I know they tell me they are doing it. Then I am entering in an agreement to work there under those conditions. If they don't tell me (including I know but not through them telling me), that is absolutely spying.
No one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when they know they are being monitored and watched because they opted into and paid for a service to do that to them.
Your opinionated words on this administration's security procedures are a bold accusation without anything backing that up.
1) Security is handled by various offices and agencies. Even if their security got lax, you can't keep that many people quiet.
2) If you are referring to Signal, good night that one has been driven into the ground. For one thing, Signal is indeed quite secure. It is end-to-end encrypted and not even Signal can read messages. They have 3rd party auditing to back up that claim. Secondly, the author of that story shared the convo and what was shared was sensitive, not classified, despite constant and repeated claims it was classified, it was not. Thirdly, that author admitted to his own belief that it was classified, so then he was the only one guilty of any crime. He believed he was given classified information. He should have immediately acknowledged the error on the chat. By not doing so, he is guilty of a crime. Now, since it wasn't ACTUALLY classified info, then he isn't guilty of a crime. But he BELIEVED it was classified, so he was willfully committing what he believed to be a crime. If only that itself were a crime!
3) This administration is going after leakers. Leakers that have put out classified information. I think that speaks contrary to your claim that their work in this regard is "laughable."
My accountability partner says there's nothing wrong with any of this. She's still outraged by Hillary's e-mails, though.
Is your accountability partner in the room with us now?
The accountability is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!
At least it's not in the Senate, yet...
You're an idiot. Covenant Eyes is not "spyware" by any stretch of any definition.
in the sense that both parties are aware of its presence on the phone, it’s not spyware. But in the sense that it records everything you do and reports it to another party, through a third-party server, it certainly is spyware.
"Spyware" is software that the user is unaware of. He is aware of it. And so is his accountability partner. It is irresponsible to call it spyware, as that is not at all how the term is accepted and used. "Spyware" intends to take information unwittingly, and presumably with the purpose of using it for personal gain at the expense of the person's stolen info. Every definition I can find uses the word "malicious" to describe what spyware is/does.
It is far more accurate to call it logging software. It logs activity. That log can be reviewed.
It is certainly fair to have concern that someone in any position of authority or power, (especially those privy to sensitive, protected, and/or classified information) is having their digital device activity logged and stored on a 3rd party's server. Certainly raise that alarm. I agree with that. But this is not spyware.
Also, if he has gone through any of the security clearance procedure I and many others have, he will be totally unable to access anything classified through that device without violating law. He'll know that, he'll be trained on that. Even without him publicly announcing he uses CE, those responsible for authorizing his clearance know full well he is using CE and know full well what it does and does not do.
If your employer installs a key logger on your computer, recording every single thing you typed so they could examine it later to make sure you’re being a good and loyal employee, but told you about it, would you still consider that spying?
also, the notion that anyone in this current administration is paying any attention to proper security procedures is kind of laughable.
It is not spying if I know they tell me they are doing it. Then I am entering in an agreement to work there under those conditions. If they don't tell me (including I know but not through them telling me), that is absolutely spying.
No one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when they know they are being monitored and watched because they opted into and paid for a service to do that to them.
Your opinionated words on this administration's security procedures are a bold accusation without anything backing that up.
1) Security is handled by various offices and agencies. Even if their security got lax, you can't keep that many people quiet.
2) If you are referring to Signal, good night that one has been driven into the ground. For one thing, Signal is indeed quite secure. It is end-to-end encrypted and not even Signal can read messages. They have 3rd party auditing to back up that claim. Secondly, the author of that story shared the convo and what was shared was sensitive, not classified, despite constant and repeated claims it was classified, it was not. Thirdly, that author admitted to his own belief that it was classified, so then he was the only one guilty of any crime. He believed he was given classified information. He should have immediately acknowledged the error on the chat. By not doing so, he is guilty of a crime. Now, since it wasn't ACTUALLY classified info, then he isn't guilty of a crime. But he BELIEVED it was classified, so he was willfully committing what he believed to be a crime. If only that itself were a crime!
3) This administration is going after leakers. Leakers that have put out classified information. I think that speaks contrary to your claim that their work in this regard is "laughable."
Thanks for reminding me to never argue with drunks, imbeciles, lunatics, or anonymous shitposters on the Internet. Bye.