4 ms·

> it's a bit far fetched to think the NSA is monitoring basically all US Internet traffic It may be far-fetched, but this was actually revealed in 2007: http:/

> it's a bit far fetched to think the NSA is monitoring basically all US Internet traffic It may be far-fetched, but this was actually revealed in 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

stinkytaco 13y ago
Yes, but the slides specifically reference "Stored Comm". There's a difference between a huge wiretap (which Room 641A was) and being able to search and access basically every communication everyone has for a budget of 20 million dollars.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  The 20M figure doesn't necessarily refer to a budget. It likely refers to the cost of making sure the traffic passes through their collection sites. If you re-read the slides, you'll see that it's talking about things like "the data travels along the cheapest path, not the shortest path" etc.
  - stinkytaco 13y ago
    Reread the, what, 4 slides? That's my point. We don't have nearly enough information to make any sort of judgement here. We should be asking questions.
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      Yes, re-read the 4 slides. If we don't have enough information, then you shouldn't speculate that $20M refers to the total cost of the operation any more than I should speculate that it doesn't.
      - stinkytaco 13y ago
        Fair enough. But it still means that we're lacking so much information about this that referring to speculating on the sources credibility as a "smear campaign" is unfair to citizens who are asking legitimate questions. I don't know enough about this to even know what the numbers mean, but I'm ready to skewer people over it? We need to fill in these gaps before we start shaping public policy on the issue and examining a sources credibility is part of that process.
        nitrogen 13y ago
        See page 18 (section 11) of http://www.slideshare.net/pastinson/u-oss-simple-sabotage-sm http://www.slideshare.net/pastinson/u-oss-simple-sabotage-sm
  - pests 13y ago
    I feel you might be taking that statement out of context. To me it seems the slide was explaining that most communication traffic travels through the United States (as demonstrated by the graphic) and the statement you quoted is an explanation of why that is true. Just to make clear my meaning: A communication between two neighboring countries might still pass through the USA because the price is cheaper despite the length of data travel being greater.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_PGKHZqqg8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_PGKHZqqg8 . This is advertising material for Narus Insight. This was released in 2011. Please note the bit where he mentions the ability to do real-time analysis of "hundreds of millions of sessions". I can't think of who this product is aimed at, if not for government. You're average ISP or hosting company would be struggling to handle hundreds of millions of simultaneous connections. I guess you can buy the full system and trained techs to run it, for less than $20 million.

stinkytaco 13y ago

Yes, but the slides specifically reference "Stored Comm". There's a difference between a huge wiretap (which Room 641A was) and being able to search and access basically every communication everyone has for a budget of 20 million dollars.

sillysaurus 13y ago
The 20M figure doesn't necessarily refer to a budget. It likely refers to the cost of making sure the traffic passes through their collection sites. If you re-read the slides, you'll see that it's talking about things like "the data travels along the cheapest path, not the shortest path" etc.
- stinkytaco 13y ago
  Reread the, what, 4 slides? That's my point. We don't have nearly enough information to make any sort of judgement here. We should be asking questions.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Yes, re-read the 4 slides. If we don't have enough information, then you shouldn't speculate that $20M refers to the total cost of the operation any more than I should speculate that it doesn't.
    - stinkytaco 13y ago
      Fair enough. But it still means that we're lacking so much information about this that referring to speculating on the sources credibility as a "smear campaign" is unfair to citizens who are asking legitimate questions. I don't know enough about this to even know what the numbers mean, but I'm ready to skewer people over it? We need to fill in these gaps before we start shaping public policy on the issue and examining a sources credibility is part of that process.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        See page 18 (section 11) of http://www.slideshare.net/pastinson/u-oss-simple-sabotage-sm http://www.slideshare.net/pastinson/u-oss-simple-sabotage-sm
- pests 13y ago
  I feel you might be taking that statement out of context. To me it seems the slide was explaining that most communication traffic travels through the United States (as demonstrated by the graphic) and the statement you quoted is an explanation of why that is true. Just to make clear my meaning: A communication between two neighboring countries might still pass through the USA because the price is cheaper despite the length of data travel being greater.
Intermernet 13y ago
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_PGKHZqqg8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_PGKHZqqg8 . This is advertising material for Narus Insight. This was released in 2011. Please note the bit where he mentions the ability to do real-time analysis of "hundreds of millions of sessions". I can't think of who this product is aimed at, if not for government. You're average ISP or hosting company would be struggling to handle hundreds of millions of simultaneous connections. I guess you can buy the full system and trained techs to run it, for less than $20 million.