Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea! I nominate you.
Yeah, I don't really want to be a "person of interest" for the rest of my life. :-)
Too late, you've already posted to HN. :-)
The NSA slide you haven’t seen
141–150 of 202 posts
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#142For those with security clearances, clicking on a random HN link is risking your job and livelihood. It's easy to see a link to WikiLeaks and avoid that but when it's the WP posting it, not so much. These articles really need to be flagged/tagged by HN and by the newspapers that publish them. I don't want to see a TS/SCI-classified document and I don't want to be seen as seeking them out. I love the technical stories…
How about taking the necessary precautions yourself instead of asking a website to protect you from illegal information?
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, one or both of these slides has been edited. I doubt that someone went back to the NSA to get "the latest version" that makes me wonder who did the editing and what was their motivation? Did the guardian change the map to make it more relevant to the "global nature" of their coverage? Did someone change it for WaPo to make it seem more credible? And the redacting part, who redacted it and why? Neither slide…
I would guess WaPo edited the map. For the Guardian's version of slide it seems easy to guess that those are the names of secret programs use to tap fiber-optic cables in certain regions. NSA wanted 2 names of those programs to remain secret. (i have some theory why..). WaPo published the names but edited the map not to give precise locations of those programs. Just my theory ofc.
I think the OO.o/MS Office explanation is perfectly reasonable and applicable in this case. Even I suggested that was what the difference was when PRISM was first leaked, and I've not exactly been on Greenwald's side throughout all of this.
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#144For those with security clearances, clicking on a random HN link is risking your job and livelihood. It's easy to see a link to WikiLeaks and avoid that but when it's the WP posting it, not so much. These articles really need to be flagged/tagged by HN and by the newspapers that publish them. I don't want to see a TS/SCI-classified document and I don't want to be seen as seeking them out. I love the technical stories…
Do we need a new tag? [OPENSECRET]?
Listening to Democracy Now this morning, one of the defense witnesses in the Manning trial explained that many, many of classified documented Manning is accused of leaking are also publicly available via government websites or in the media. For instance, personal details of detainees at gitmo.
I'm struggling to understand how information which is in the public domain can be classified.
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#145I don't mean to brag, but as I was writing a story about surveillance on my home computer today, the NSA director called and said, "I really love where you're going with this."
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#146I'm amused by BLARNEY. I presume this represents cable that runs from the US to Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blarney_Stone
Before the safeguards were installed, the kiss was performed with real risk to life and limb, as participants were grasped by the ankles and dangled bodily from the height.
I can reliably inform you that this is indeed as scary as it sounds.
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#147Once again, I suggest everyone interested read James Bamford's book Shadow Factory. All these revelations regarding call metadata, PRISM collection (albeit under a different codename at the time), modern fiber taps, and even more are covered. You'll learn about how they shave fiber optic cables in order to intercept traffic and not be detected. You'll find out about the various facilities already reported, along with…
Was expecting to find comment by tptacek explaining how WP's Craig Timberg has no journalistic integrity because "direct access" clearly doesn't mean the NSA gets whatever data it wants by whatever means necessary. Rather, "direct access" can only imply the NSA administers the credentials of each and every server and database existent, which clearly couldn't be true.
Maybe he's busy.
I'll check back.
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even without CALEA, if I'm reading the press coverage right, the FISA orders to which Google comply once they check that they were issued by FISC can be very broad, including "give me ALL the metadata you have" in a single order. Because "taking all metadata an storing it indefinitely is nothing to be worried about" in NSA interpretations.
Well all metadata wouldn't work as that could be used to intercept U.S. persons' data. The warrant/NSL would have to list by name/UID at the very least, but once it's established that the UID in question is foreign and a part of an investigation then you are right that the warrant/NSL can be very broad.
How can you say "all metadata wouldn't work"? Thanks to Snowden, here's the full single FISC order which says "give the all metadata you have":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri...
Moreover the language it was written implies that the same order was made to the other providers, changing just the recipient.
(If you are on the network which blocks access to Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/us-army-blocks-g... you're missing a lot! Visit some friends, surf from their computer.)
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you couldn't tap in without disturbing the optical signal Well of course you can't. If you're going to split it off to read it, then you're "disturbing" it by definition. Whether or not you can do such that it's not noticeable to the proper end parties, of course, is a different story.
What's to stop a direct packet copy? The line goes in, a digital device sees the packets, copies them bit for bit and sends the original to their destination and a copy to the NSA. Similar to headphone splitting.
The act of doing the splitting would increase latency.
Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you couldn't tap in without disturbing the optical signal Well of course you can't. If you're going to split it off to read it, then you're "disturbing" it by definition. Whether or not you can do such that it's not noticeable to the proper end parties, of course, is a different story.
What's to stop a direct packet copy? The line goes in, a digital device sees the packets, copies them bit for bit and sends the original to their destination and a copy to the NSA. Similar to headphone splitting.
I'm no expert but this will probably produce extra latency?