101–110 of 202 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is always the Blackberry.
If they've publicly provided similar capabilities to the Indian government, it seems naive to think that list isn't longer. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-take-over...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why that would be true. This is classical signal transmitted optically, not quantum cryptography. There is no reason you couldn't splice the cable through a machine that recorded the signal and then recreated it. Or a beam splitter that removed just a small fraction of the signal; the effect would be a slight increase in transmission loss.
The prevailing theory is that they do the latter; the former would be both easy to detect (at the time of splice) and locate (via TDR). Getting the signal out of the fiber pales in comparison, though, with the task of getting all of that data back to Maryland/Utah. Unless they have specific cooperation of the cable owners and can tap/split the fibers at the landings, they must be spending a significant percentage of…
Of course, this requires a friendly country at one end of the cable, but that's probably not too big a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said this? It seems obviously false. All you would have to do is insert a detector and another emitter that simply replays everything the detector reads.
While I agree it's certainly false, your implementation idea would almost certainly introduce detectable delay. All you'd need is a beam splitter. You can manufacture them to only take 1% of the beam.
(The presentation was given by Evi Nemeth, who was sadly in the news recently due to being lost at sea.)
[1] http://www.caida.org/workshops/isma/9808/report.html "The coral/ocXmon family of monitors use optical splitters to tap fiber, filtering 5-10% of the light signal to interface cards in the coral monitoring host."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you left out the step where a judge reviews the request to make sure it's not overly broad or based on flimsy reasoning. Aside from that I'd say it's a very clear, and it's sad that there seems to be a pervasive inference that these companies are something something beyond what our elected law makers have forced them to do. Why isn't more angst directed at the politicians responsible for…
But these companies do more than what is required by law. They do not by law have to provide API access, only to provide the data in some form. None of the smaller webmail hosts cooperate in PRISM. And as for warrants, no they do not always need a warrant. They only need that if both parties in the communication are US citizens. If none of them are no warrant is needed at all and if just one party is US then they (ac…
I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google...
> "collection directly from the servers" So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.
Such naivety.
I feel like it will be a while before we truly know exactly what is going on.
> "collection directly from the servers" So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.
So, if you're under oath, you're not allowed to lie. And if you're read into an SCI program that controls the disclosure of the existence of such access, you're most definitely not allowed to say anything about it (or, in many cases, even acknowledge that such a thing exists). There is no way someone would risk perjuring themselves OR disclosing classified information under oath.
Yeah but what stops you from doing so? I mean, not lying, just giving the "least untruthful" statement you can:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-...