21–30 of 51 posts
"... This includes recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user's access to websites ..." Isn't Facebook using SSL these days?
"This was done under secret agreements with commercial companies, described in one document as 'intercept partners'. […] some companies have been paid for the cost of their co-operation and GCHQ went to great lengths to keep their names secret. They were assigned 'sensitive relationship teams' and staff were urged in one internal guidance paper to disguise the origin of 'special source' material in their reports for…
It's nice to see that giving all their users data to the spy agencies is a business model for these companies.
850,000 employees/contractors?? - That can't be correct can it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but one month ago they still had plausible deniability, not anymore. In short the term it may change nothing but in the long run it will have an impact, no doubt.
I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. Can we just resolve this right here? The Internet backbone is tapped. To whatever extent NSA isn't looking at our traffic (or is pretending not to, or pantomiming not doing it), some other foreign SIGINT agency is. To believe otherwise is to belie…
I feel bad for conspiracy theorists. Had they made the same statement a month ago, they would have been called tin-foil hat wearing nuts and now people say things like the above so casually and pretend like it was obvious all along.
I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow it is revealed that the NSA has collaborated with Verisign and other certificate authorities so as to decrypt SSL certificates a whole bunch of people would come out of the woodworks to claim "of course the NSA can decrypt your SSL connection".
> To believe otherwise is to believe that intelligence agencies believe the Internet is off limits ... Of course they don't believe that.
Of course they don't. People probably doubted they had the capability to sort through and and find useful information inside an internet backbone. It's a tremendous effort collecting and querying that much data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. Can we just resolve this right here? The Internet backbone is tapped. To whatever extent NSA isn't looking at our traffic (or is pretending not to, or pantomiming not doing it), some other foreign SIGINT agency is. To believe otherwise is to belie…
> I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. I feel bad for conspiracy theorists. Had they made the same statement a month ago, they would have been called tin-foil hat wearing nuts and now people say things like the above so casually and pretend like it was obvious all along. I wouldn't b…
It actually was obvious all along. There have been many programs of gathering as much data as they can. ECHELON is pretty old.
> People probably doubted they had the capability to sort through and and find useful information inside an internet backbone. It's a tremendous effort collecting and querying that much data.
Yes, it is a lot of data. GCHQ have a lot of computers (largest LAN in Europe, part of largest WAN in world, etc.) They also have a lot of expertise in this kind of thing. Who else would be buying all the data-mining books? (http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=0-102-24-0-0&searchType=EASY_...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. Can we just resolve this right here? The Internet backbone is tapped. To whatever extent NSA isn't looking at our traffic (or is pretending not to, or pantomiming not doing it), some other foreign SIGINT agency is. To believe otherwise is to belie…
> I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. I feel bad for conspiracy theorists. Had they made the same statement a month ago, they would have been called tin-foil hat wearing nuts and now people say things like the above so casually and pretend like it was obvious all along. I wouldn't b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. Can we just resolve this right here? The Internet backbone is tapped. To whatever extent NSA isn't looking at our traffic (or is pretending not to, or pantomiming not doing it), some other foreign SIGINT agency is. To believe otherwise is to belie…
> I'm confused as to how anyone could have believed that one of the 5 largest signals intelligence agencies in the world could not have been tapping Internet backbone cables. I feel bad for conspiracy theorists. Had they made the same statement a month ago, they would have been called tin-foil hat wearing nuts and now people say things like the above so casually and pretend like it was obvious all along. I wouldn't b…
Because of this I'm almost ashamed of how much credit I've been doling out to other allegedly shady accusations that get made and dismissed as passing conspiracy theories.