3 ms·
That is just one opinion against another. With little fact to support any side. In your comment, for example, you seem to suppose that those agencies do not bu
by pbasista 10y ago
That is just one opinion against another. With little fact to support any side.
In your comment, for example, you seem to suppose that those agencies do not buy storage on secondary markets. Can you confirm that? Because if they do, then your sales statistics are almost meaningless in this regard.
Also, it seems like you assume that everything the agencies collect is stored "as it was transferred" (i.e. if the same YouTube video was viewed millions of times, they would store it in millions of copies). I think it is safe to assume that these agencies are a little bit smarter than that and if they store everything, they have some kind of compression in place to minimize redundant storage of the same chunks of data.
In any way, I think that until someone like Snowden speaks up again and brings evidence from inside of these agencies, we are only left with speculation.
- hendersoon 10y agoThere's no speculation on the UK. We know the GCHQ does this. Of course they generate quite a bit less traffic than the USA, given their smaller population. We don't know whether the NSA does "Full Take" today. That's speculation. I would be astonished if they didn't, and it is reasonable to behave as if they do. It's possible, it was possible 4 years ago, and storage is not getting _more_ expensive over time.