81–90 of 407 posts
So the numbers we recently got from Facebook and Microsoft don't mean anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The process as I understand it: * NSA (or some other USG agency) issues a directive to the provider under authorization from FISA. No court order is required for NSA to issue directives under FISA. * If the provider is Google, Yahoo, or Facebook†, that directive is reviewed manually by the provider. * In at least the case of Yahoo, where this step is supported by court documents, but probably all the other cases too…
> If you're telling me that this is the understanding most HN people have about what "direct access" means, I'd direct your attention to this very thread to rebut that argument. I'm not at all saying that. I'm saying that most HN folks do not share your definition of what "direct access" means. I specifically said that it seems like most people are quite aware of the ambiguity of the meaning of "direct access" in a c…
So that's not good. You can see how that could be happening; NSA has trunk-level access to telephony circuits. Telcos are engaged in a long-running game of footsie with the government that makes billion dollar Internet companies look like anarcho-capitalists. But I'm not seeing how we get from there to the contents of email. To have the email of arbitrary Americans without a warrant, the NSA would need direct access…
Or Google could provide the NSA a copy of the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The National Security Agency does not listen to Americans’ phone calls and it is not reading Americans’ emails. None of these programs allow that,” -Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chair of the House Intelligence Committee. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/intelligence-co...
It is possible for that to be true, too: that to the best of anyone's knowledge, even though NSA retains the capability to listen to arbitrary calls, it has used that capability only in instances where they are reasonably certain that the calls weren't from Americans. (Although half the site seems to think I'm an NSA supporter, here I'll again make it clear that the telco access NSA seems to have is an extremely bad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, most SMTP travels without encryption. Second, it's unfathomable to me to imagine the NSA isn't doing their damnedest to obtain all private keys. I have no idea how many they do have, but it seems foolish to assume they don't have a specific private key. Why do you think the NSA would regard private keys as some kind of sacred ground? For example, they could go after it the same way the Chinese do - phishing at…
Most SMTP does, but does most SMTP that originates or terminates at Google Mail? I don't think so. (Here it's worth noting that mail between Google Mail users doesn't ever hit the public Internet in plaintext SMTP). I do not think it's unfathomable that NSA has Google Mail's public key. I do think it's unfathomable that, having illicitly obtained that key, their possession of it wouldn't be one of the most closely gu…
So that's not good. You can see how that could be happening; NSA has trunk-level access to telephony circuits. Telcos are engaged in a long-running game of footsie with the government that makes billion dollar Internet companies look like anarcho-capitalists. But I'm not seeing how we get from there to the contents of email. To have the email of arbitrary Americans without a warrant, the NSA would need direct access…
They can get all unencrypted SMTP messages which means they can get all messages between gmail and outside mail servers. They would only be missing internal gmail to gmail messages.
>"That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed. " So the numbers we recently got from Facebook and Microsoft don't mean anything.
I am confused by this particular piece of disclosure. Who is disclosing it? CNET or Rep. Darrel? If Rep. Darrel said it....y do they need comment? If he isn't disclosing it, how did CNET come by this statement? This is quite confusing.
* - Originally posted by marshray. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5886860
So that's not good. You can see how that could be happening; NSA has trunk-level access to telephony circuits. Telcos are engaged in a long-running game of footsie with the government that makes billion dollar Internet companies look like anarcho-capitalists. But I'm not seeing how we get from there to the contents of email. To have the email of arbitrary Americans without a warrant, the NSA would need direct access…
Is the relay of mail between, say, Yahoo and Gmail using strong crypto? (I'm curious; I thought not but I haven't been keeping up on bulk email interchange practices.)