Slashdot Mirror


Former FBI Agent: All Digital Communications Stored By US Gov't

New submitter davesays writes "CNN anchors Erin Burnett and Carol Costello have interviewed Former FBI Counterterrorisim specialist Tim Clemente. In the interviews he asserts that all digital communications are recorded and stored. Clemente: 'No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.' 'All of that stuff' — meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on U.S. soil, with or without a search warrant — 'is being captured as we speak.' 'No digital communication is secure,' by which he means not that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: all digital communications — meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like — are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is."

101 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Jupiter Tape? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt they have the storage capacity.

    1. Re:Jupiter Tape? by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      He could be talking about the ubiquitous and insecure nature of all on line digital communications. Meaning, everyone is constantly leaving trails that the government can access years later. Which seems far more plausible.

      But who knows, maybe they have above top secret alien positron brain quantum foam storage technology (or insert your own fantastic technobabble) buried at area 51...

      Aquinas Hub anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex

    2. Re:Jupiter Tape? by CmdrEdem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More than storage capacity, they need software and/or manpower to analyze everything. More likely his superiors just lied to his face about this or he was paid to say such things to make people think twice about doing any rebellious shit.

      --
      This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
    3. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      More than storage capacity, they need software and/or manpower to analyze everything.

      It's doable, whether it's doable currently I can't say. Remember that the STASI did exactly this, and were able to comb through all personal communications.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Several years ago a friend of mine and I tried to work out what would be required to store all of the voice communications in the U.S., though I've since lost the spreadsheet I did the calculations on. We initially started off with Xbox Live! game chat, which we quickly determined could easily be archived by Microsoft with a (for them) fairly small bank of servers. We then went on to cell phones. It was hard to estimate, but using what we could find online it didn't seem too ridiculous that even with the most liberal estimates of voice data consumption, an entity with access to the streams could likely store all mobile voice communications. VoIP estimates were a lot harder as we couldn't find any real data on total usage, but we did learn that most copper wire has been eliminated and nearly all phone communications now are digital. Since this eliminates the (more expensive) need to covert audio to data, it is not impossible to do. Given the comparably lower price in storage since we went through that, I imagine that the cost of obtaining and storing all voice communications in the U.S., and all communications routed through the U.S., would be less than a rounding error in the DOD's budget.

    5. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They may sift it for key-words, and record who, where, and when, but not necessarily the entire conversation or transaction.

    6. Re:Jupiter Tape? by flayzernax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well we already know they have the means to do keyword searches on a great deal of data. Carnivore has been debated openly before congress so I would definitely have to agree thats the minimum capability to expect.

    7. Re:Jupiter Tape? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's not right. I've worked at a non-Bell telco, and they don't capture anything not ordered by a specific warrant, and only then, for the warrant, and no more than necessary to comply with the order.

      I've heard rumors that AT&T captures all, but never anything that confirms that. Perhaps he meant that the major carriers provide streaming replicas of all traffic to the government, who then archives some (or all) of it. But I know for a fact that "all" is just plain wrong.

    8. Re:Jupiter Tape? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the guy is lying?

      Probably. He is trying to make a name for himself as a consultant. This claim will give him some publicity. If his claim was true, hundreds of people would know about it, and all of them would know they were breaking the law. Some of these people would be in government, but many of them would be in telecom companies, that would have no reason to cooperate, and plenty of reason not to (losing customers, end of career, prison time, etc.). Of course, no amount of logic or absence of evidence this will stop the conspiracy theories (see below). Of course, if it actually was true, the FBI would probably hire shills to go on Slashdot and spread disinformation, and try to convince everyone that there was no vast conspiracy, so why should you trust me?

    9. Re:Jupiter Tape? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember that the STASI did exactly this

      The Stasi did only did the easy part: monitoring everyone.

      The didn't do the hard part: keeping it secret.

    10. Re:Jupiter Tape? by calzones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to assert one way or the other whether he's telling the truth, but...

      It's much more sensible to record everything and keep it for a short while and then begin a process of attrition. If everything is accessible for 1 hour, that's pretty powerful because you can freeze data after an event happens and look for what you need. After one hour, maybe only certain things and certain people are tracked for up to a day... then a week... a month... a year...

      --
      Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    11. Re:Jupiter Tape? by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      I would say no to ROT13, probably can be monitored more or less in real time. I would also think that any particular juicy targets for the real intelligence community (I'm not talking about the bullshit they use to warmonger and perform psyops thats constantly flaming Iran and China) but the real people doing real work that might actually be making a real difference behind the scenes, if they do in deed exist and it is at all possible (I don't have any idea) would be using more then just interception, they would have spies collecting passwords and running man in the middle attacks. Compromising enemy systems and phishing. Probably even digging through trash bins outside of enemy embassies and anything else they could get their hands on. Meaning ROT13 is a joke and has been for a long time.

      But I know that no agency on the planet has the manpower to seriously dig through everyones trash in hopes of finding old hard drives or wireless NICs they can exploit.

    12. Re:Jupiter Tape? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So the guy is lying? Perhaps. Or just exaggerating. But I doubt there isn't more than one data center for this very purpose. The question is what kind of hardware would be necessary to compress all the data live.

      If he wasn't lying, he would be arrested for violation of his LIFE LONG NDA you sign when you take a job with the The FBI.

      So if he is picked up for tax evasion or some similar nonsense charge, then I'll start to believe him, but until then, I suspect he has a book he is peddling now or in the near future.

      People should remember just how terrible Americans are at keeping a secret. Someone would have leaked this long ago, just as the secret room at the AT&T switch center was leaked within a couple months.

      It wouldn't come from a lowly guy hyping a book.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    13. Re:Jupiter Tape? by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2

      They already did this since the 40s. See echelon. Pretty certain they have found some nifty ways to store all this data.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    14. Re:Jupiter Tape? by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're unaware that the NSA has a room in every major telco hub then? And that the techs aren't allowed to even look crossways at it or what they're hooked into, even for network diagnostic purposes? Huh.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    15. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      "'ve heard rumors that AT&T captures all, but never anything that confirms that. "

      It most certainly is confirmed. In a court case some years ago, a technician outed that the government had installed a splitter in a special room in one of their exchanges, which fed ALL of their digital data straight to the government. The telcos involved admitted that it was only one of many such. Mass collection, and no warrants involved, anywhere.

      In fact, that was the whole reason Congress voted to give telcos immunity, remember? How short our memories can be.

    16. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having said that: where is immunity for the Government? It doesn't have any. And this is about as blatantly un-Constitutional as you can get.

      I have been wondering for several years where the public uproar over this is. It's a crime against The People... as defined by our own laws.

    17. Re:Jupiter Tape? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably. He is trying to make a name for himself as a consultant.

      He worked in the FBI's counter-terrorism division. I don't think he needs to "make a name" for himself. His resume already says enough.

      If his claim was true, hundreds of people would know about it, and all of them would know they were breaking the law.

      And as we know, government officials never break the law. Glad we cleared that one up.

      but many of them would be in telecom companies, that would have no reason to cooperate,

      They have guns. Lots of guns. Feeling lucky, punk?

      ). Of course, no amount of logic or absence of evidence this will stop the conspiracy theories (see below).

      "Conspiracy theories by a former official in a credible position to know these things." FTFY.

      Of course, if it actually was true, the FBI would probably hire shills to go on Slashdot and spread disinformation, and try to convince everyone that there was no vast conspiracy, so why should you trust me?

      Why would the FBI give two shits about a geek news site? And why would they need to convince you, me, or anyone else, there wasn't a "vast conspiracy"? You're making a straw man here. A big one.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    18. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was a nice joke about the "inconspicuous" nature of Stasi surveillance:

      Q: How can you tell when the Stasi has bugged your apartment?

      A: You find an unexplained large cabinet in the apartment, and on the street a trailer with a diesel generator has parked...

    19. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Smallpond · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The average cell phone usage is 459 minutes/month * 300 M cell phones / 2 * 60 sec * 3 KB/sec = 13,000 PB/month (uncompressed).

    20. Re:Jupiter Tape? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      A switch room that contains a deep packet scanner is not the same thing as sending ALL internet traffic to a storage system. More likely it's just a tap.

      The thing that makes me doubt this is the cost. To funnel a copy of the internet to the Feds would require building a shadow internet plus storage for the whole thing.

    21. Re:Jupiter Tape? by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2
      Cool. I can just send a freedom of information request and get a transcript of my phone calls on the government dime!!! Convenience ++

      That's what I call service!

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    22. Re:Jupiter Tape? by DragonTHC · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's not a lot of storage necessary. Not what you're thinking. Text messages and chats are very small in size. Phone conversations are very small using the right codecs. I also heard once about 8 years ago that the US government was buying up symmetrix like they were going out of style.

      Honestly, I believe it. It's entirely possible.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    23. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "A switch room that contains a deep packet scanner is not the same thing as sending ALL internet traffic to a storage system. More likely it's just a tap."

      No, the public record is clear. It's not a "switch room", it's a splitter. And yes, the technical and expense implications of that have been debated and re-debated, re-hashed and triple-warmed-over.

      They are splitters. And they send ALL the digital data on fiber that enter those exchanges directly to government. No packet inspection (at those locations, anyway), and no "taps". Just a "Y" in the fibers.

      (Yes, I realize that technically it's quite a bit more complicated than that, because it involves amplifiers and lots of other things. This, too, was brought up in the court case. But that's what it is. It's in the public court records. Again: that's why the telcos were given immunity. Where were you when this was all going on?)

    24. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uncompressed? Why?

      iPod classic gives you 160GB of storage capacity, good for up to 40,000 songs, ....

      [fine print at the bottom of the page]
      Song capacity is based on 4 minutes per song and 128-Kbps AAC encoding;
      http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/features.html

      459 minutes of voice data equals 115 songs. 115 songs is 0.2875% of the storage capacity (that "0" is intentional, this is a fraction of a single percent), or about 0.46 marketing gigs. This all at a pretty decent bitrate which people want for music, but is entirely overkill for recording voice data that isn't going to be sold as entertainment.

    25. Re:Jupiter Tape? by deadweight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If memory serves, the STASI eventually had about 1/3 of the population involved in informing on someone or something and never came close to be able to analyze all the data they got.

    26. Re:Jupiter Tape? by DaHat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having said that: where is immunity for the Government? It doesn't have any.

      Sovereign immunity... and it has existed for far longer than this nation has.

    27. Re:Jupiter Tape? by master5o1 · · Score: 2

      What about lolcrypt? http://lolcryption.master5o1.com/ :P

      --
      signature is pants
    28. Re:Jupiter Tape? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The average cell phone usage is 459 minutes/month * 300 M cell phones / 2 * 60 sec * 3 KB/sec = 13,000 PB/month (uncompressed).

      Why the "/ 2"/ Assuming that every phone call made from a cell phone is also to a cell phone? And not doing compression, but doing dedup?
      I don't know how others use theirs, but most of my phone calls aren't social, but to businesses and their land lines.

      Anyhow, CTIA lists 2.30 Teraminutes yearly per December 2012. Presumably that's also counting cell-to-cell twice, which I'm sure the three letter agencies would record twice too (if nothing else to record what was said when there's a drop-out in the connection on either end). That's 138 Teraseconds, which at 3 kB/s would be 414 PB per year, before compression.
      That's a far cry from your 13,000 PB per month (or 156 EB per year), and spread out over multiple providers absolutely doable from a capacity viewpoint. Especially since it doesn't have to be online for a year, but can go on tape. If ten datacenters recorded this, with a fluctuation of 40% in data density between them, and flushed everything to tape within a week, each would need less than 2 PB of online storage.

      But do I believe they do so? No. If they did, they wouldn't have a way to mine the data. It would possibly be useful as evidence after the fact, but not for monitoring purposes. It's way too much data.

    29. Re:Jupiter Tape? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is Klein's statement.

      https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/SER_klein_decl.pdf

      The splitter sent the internet traffic to a secure room.

      And another interview with Klein:

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html

      It's pretty obvious that room contained a Narus DPI. End of story.

    30. Re:Jupiter Tape? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      You assume the FBI would have to go out and hire people to act as shills, as opposed to already having them on payroll.

      Maybe I only pretended to assume that to divert your suspicions, and I have actually been on the FBI payroll for the whole time.

    31. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People should remember just how terrible Americans are at keeping a secret

      How long did the Manhattan Project employ thousands of people before anyone figured out what they were making?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    32. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      AT&T doing warrant free capture of arbitrary domestic communications is a matter of legal record. They were granted immunity from prosecution when their cooperation with NSA monitoring was exposed by a whistleblower employee. One of the critical facilities was referred to as "Room 641A". There's a reasonable Wikipeda article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A.

      I've seen no reason to believe that this practice has stopped, merely to believe that they've gotten a bit more subtle about it. The bent fiber optics they were tapping to gather optic signals caused noticeable signal loss. But with more modern fiber optic hardware, it should be much easier to replicate the signals digitally at the fiber optic switches, with the direct cooperation of the telco. And with more recent "Pariot Act" style warrant free search orders, AT&T and other telcos could be legally prohibited from ever admitting that such tapping has occurred.

    33. Re:Jupiter Tape? by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      I doubt they have the storage capacity.

      ha ha, no. They totally do. Did you know that in 2011, 680 million drives were shipped? Do you really think a couple exobytes of data would even be a blip on the radar? That's only a few thousand drives.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    34. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      ...he would be arrested for violation of his LIFE LONG NDA you sign when you take a job with the The FBI.

      Never heard anything about that from my FBI friend.

      Well, of course not -- he wasn't allowed to tell you about it ;^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    35. Re:Jupiter Tape? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By this logic we should also believe Bob Lazar about alien technologies. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the word of one insider means squat.

      His "extraordinary" claim is that the government is doing what Google has already done: Indexing the entire internet, with the only difference being one of scale. I think if a private company started by a few college kids can do that, a government with nearly a trillion dollars in operating budget can come up with something.

      So your argument is that they will cooperate or be shot? This isn't even a sane way for a conspiracy to operate.

      Correct. But then, it's not a conspiracy. He's suggesting a corporation wouldn't cooperate with law enforcement requests. That's patently absurd; Corporations have little to gain and loads to lose if they decide to go against the government. Multi-billion dollar corporations aren't known for behaving like belligerant teenagers.

      The point is that the scale of the conspiracy necessary to pull this off is vast enough to make this extremely unlikely.

      Except it isn't a conspiracy; we're talking about a national 'darknet' that taps key points in the internet and then mirrors that data to a processing facility before being stored in a relational database. It's not a conspiracy, numerous government officials have already gone on the record as saying this technology exists, today, now. It's not classified. It's not a secret. They've come right out and said this capability exists.

      LOL

      A former agent for the counter-terrorism branch of our largest federal law enforcement agency talking about the technology used in counter-terrorism is about as credible as it gets, dude. LOL all you want, but your own cred is the only thing the rest of us are laughing at: You're an internet pundit.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    36. Re:Jupiter Tape? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he wasn't lying, he would be arrested for violation of his LIFE LONG NDA you sign when you take a job with the The FBI.

      That's such a load of bullshit I'm surprised I'm the first to call you out on it. The overwhelming majority of the FBI's records are public; they're called court cases. And yes, the agents can discuss them. The agents can even discuss the methods that they use. The only thing agents can't discuss is material related to an active or ongoing investigation, or material that has been classified. There no evidence that either condition has been met here.

      People should remember just how terrible Americans are at keeping a secret.

      Yup. Everybody knows how to build nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, ICBMs, because we're terrible at keeping secrets. So, tell me, what's the maximum listing angle that any of our nuclear submarines can operate at before they automatically shut down? You don't know? Okay, how about this one: When is the next high-energy test of the HARRP? Don't know that one either? Umm, how about a real easy one: Who's the pilot of Air Force One? Ah, didn't think so.

      Someone would have leaked this long ago, just as the secret room at the AT&T switch center was leaked within a couple months.

      Yeah, it's a super duper big secret that the government can tap phones and digital lines. Dude, you make this leak sound like it was some kind of blow to our nation's intelligence operations, rather than having all the relevance of knowing the President ordered his latte with skim milk this morning. It wasn't a secret; It just wasn't advertised. There's a big difference. You won't find our nuclear missile silos in North Dakota on google map with the words "Secret Nuclear Missile Silos Here" underneath; But that doesn't mean they aren't there, nor does it mean that there's extra-special effort being taken to keep them secret. They just aren't advertised -- everyone knows they're there.

      It wouldn't come from a lowly guy hyping a book.

      Yes, a "lowly" agent of our largest law enforcement agency, discussing something that he did professionally for many years, and the tools he used to do that job should be trusted less than random internet pundit "leaking" the same information.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    37. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Compress? This is the gov't. If they can capture everything, they have the money to store it raw. Whether it takes 1x storage space or 10x storage space is only dollars, which they print.

      Even given unlimited dollars, there is only so much hardware that the world's electronics industry is capable of producing each year. Therefore even the all-powerful MIBs will have limits on what they can afford to do.

      From what I've read, a lot of surveillance doesn't bother analyzing the actual content of the communications at all; instead they just keep track of who was communicating with who at what time(s), and use statistical/data-mining techniques to draw conclusions from that.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    38. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Camael · · Score: 3

      For the less tech oriented, what is a Narus DPI and what does it do?

    39. Re:Jupiter Tape? by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's no uncompresed 22kHz audio anywhere in the phone network system. You simply budget 64kbits/s for one direction in a voice call, that's also called DS0. That's what the analog last mile gets converted to and hauled as worldwide. It's 8 ksamples/s, at 8 bits per sample, using nonlinear A-law or mu-law lookup table. Every fax or modem connection gets hauled that way as well, and it works by design :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    40. Re:Jupiter Tape? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      DPI = deep packet inspection. A TCP/IP packet contains header(s) and body. The header tells you the address and some info re the protocol. The body is the content. Most internet infrastructure only cares about the header. Something that is capable of DPI will recover the content of some types of packets. Which ones depends on the capability of the DPI unit you use.

      So if you want to search for email sent to joe@there.com you need to use DPI because the email header is in the body.

      Use of a splitter is step one for DPI.

      This article talks about the AT&T / Mark Klein incident:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection#United_States

    41. Re:Jupiter Tape? by guttentag · · Score: 4, Interesting
      And Dell, who was the subject of today's slashdot story about Syria that mentioned Blue Coat in the summary, is listed as a strategic partner on Blue Coat's Web site and Narus's Web site.

      Narus

      For more than 26 years, Dell has empowered countries, communities, customers, and people everywhere with the right technologies to realize their dreams.

      Blue Coat

      Dell is a strategic reseller & global systems integrator for Blue Coat’s products. Blue Coat’s products are available through the Dell Software & Peripherals catalog for a variety of Secure Web Gateway, WAN Optimization & Visibility solutions.

      Dell's Sunnyvale offices are at 909 Hermosa Ct Sunnyvale, CA... not on the same street, but physically adjacent to Blue Coat's campus. Its building is about 40 feet from Blue Coat's... for Dell employees, it's a shorter walk to Blue Coat than it is to some of their own cars in the parking lot.

      Spelled out: Blue Coat and Dell work together to sell governments equipment to monitor their citizens' communications. And so do Narus and Dell.

    42. Re:Jupiter Tape? by dachshund · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nobody needs to actively mine the data. The goal would be to collect it. Once you've collected it, you have the ability to follow leads you wouldn't have been able to follow had you not captured it in the first place.

      You become aware that an individual may be a person of interest. Ordinarily you'd begin your investigation at that point. With this technology you can now go 'back in time' and figure out not only who that person spoke with, but exactly what was said in those calls. It would be incredibly useful.

      I could even see Executive Branch lawyers convincing themselves that this was legal, provided the communications were not actually accessed without some sort of due process.

      Of course, the problem with this theory is that it would be very hard to implement, since it would require massive and detectable changes to local telco infrastructure. On the other hand, intercepting wireless communications could be done without any such tampering, provided that the government could obtain a database of SIM credentials for decryption.

    43. Re:Jupiter Tape? by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      Actually after reading through all of the discussion here it sounds to me much more plausible that the government might actually be trying to log everything off a few major backbones. I could go either way. I always assume someone may be watching what I do on line. I've always operated like that anyway. Now there are options for making anything you do on line hard decrypt. There's other ways of hiding real information in plain sight, or using good encryption as well as other methods to obfuscate the sources of messages. There was a story about that guy with the Siberian mailbox (maybe it was post office box). Did the Japanese ever find that guy?

      But I am certainly not qualified to go about telling anyone how to covertly access a computer system anonymously. Nor would I pretend that I could. That would require resources, mobility, knowledge, and access to things I don't have. Nor would I want to do any of that anyway. At least not to post what I do.

    44. Re:Jupiter Tape? by mvdwege · · Score: 2
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    45. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      Why do you want to analyze everything? If the goal is to find everything bad that someone you don't like said or browsed online, storing is all you need.

      "Oh, I know why you don't like interception capabilities, Mr Senator, but what can you tell us about your frequent visits to sexymilfinbestialbondage.com ?"

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    46. Re:Jupiter Tape? by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually after reading through all of the discussion here it sounds to me much more plausible that the government might actually be trying to log everything off a few major backbones

      That's what I'd do.

      But I am certainly not qualified to go about telling anyone how to covertly access a computer system anonymously. Nor would I pretend that I could. That would require resources, mobility, knowledge, and access to things I don't have. Nor would I want to do any of that anyway. At least not to post what I do.

      Not really. All you need is a pringles can, a wifi card with an SMT connector, and a couple pieces of software. Anonymity and mobility is easy, and the knowledge isn't specialized.

      The problem isn't access, but entropy. The more you use a system, any system, the more ordered the access becomes; That is, before you access the system, you could say the entropic space to search to find your attempt is infinite, and with every interaction, the entropy reduces until eventually it reaches a threshold where the pattern becomes statistically unique. What most people don't realize... is how little time and interaction is required to reach that point.

      The more you use a system, the easier it becomes to tie that use to an identity. Via comparative analysis with other identities, it eventually becomes possible to link it to a specific person. What this means then, is that in essence, no matter what methods you use to access a given system, the mere act of accessing it, independently of anything else, decreases your anonymity. And the more access, the less anonymity.

      You can increase the complexity but you cannot prevent convergence to unity. Anonymity gradually drops to zero.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    47. Re:Jupiter Tape? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Interesting

      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/worlds-1st-exabyte-storage-system/1266

      All US telephone conversations per day approx: 1.5 Petabytes

      Fits easily.

      Room for 2 years worth, or are you going to tell me US govt 3-letter agencies don't spend much on data centers.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    48. Re:Jupiter Tape? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2
      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    49. Re:Jupiter Tape? by Visserau · · Score: 2

      Only a small fraction of a percent of the LHC data is actually ever stored. The rest is discarded because there is FAR too much to deal with (specially, too much data being generated in too short a time to be handled by any caching or delay mechanism). IIRC the figures were aproximately 90,000 particle interactions stored out of a possible 360 trillion that had occured up until the point talked about in the article.

    50. Re:Jupiter Tape? by digitalchinky · · Score: 2

      The guy from the FBI really has no clue what he is talking about. From his purview he may absolutely believe what he is saying, but he definitely has no appreciation for the technical realities. Recording voice is useless without storing the corresponding signaling system (SS7 these days) which is again useless if you don't know exactly which voice circuits the signaling system happens to be controlling. It's a very (very) tough problem to solve if you're doing the secret 3 letter agency thing somewhere along the comms path. How many CCITT7 links are there? Millions+ Each one runs at 64kbps typically.

      Voice is only a tiny fraction of 'digital communications' anyway, there are millions of multiplexers running over millions of point to point radio / copper / fiber links, these in themselves use a staggeringly large number of frequencies, modulation methods, coding schemes, and so on. Some are encrypted, some are using non standard randomizers, unusual error correction, etc.

      My point - the first post is correct. The problem space is far too large.

    51. Re:Jupiter Tape? by tibman · · Score: 3, Funny

      As long as you're okay with them redacting half of it.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    52. Re:Jupiter Tape? by dachshund · · Score: 2

      For the Boston Marathon bombers, this would have been a perfect investigative tool. Once you have the phone number of a target, you simply scan backwards through all of their recorded calls.

      When I say nobody needs to mine the data, I don't mean nobody every looks at it. I simply mean that you don't mine it in real time. You simply record the text along with the call metadata, and wait until you have some specific targets to investigate. At that point you construct a graph from that starting point, and go back to listen to the relevant calls.

      I think you're overestimating the need for voice recognition. People with burner phones still leave records. After the fact you'd look for obvious connections, paying particular attention to numbers classified as likely disposables.

      (I have no doubt that some of this already happens at the metadata level, anyway. The question here is whether they actually record call contents to go with it.)

    53. Re: Jupiter Tape? by dachshund · · Score: 2

      There's a huge difference between this claim and lawful intercept on demand -- meaning that a formal request is made to the Telco to intercept such and such number for a period of time, then the calls are re-routed to special recording equipment.

      In this case you'd need to have active real-time recording capability for every call made on every switch in the entire national phone network. You'd also have to hide this capability from the techs who work on the switches and/or swear them all to secrecy. That would be tens of thousands of switches, and many thousands of technicians.

      Leaving aside the fact that you'd have to re-engineer the switches themselves, since they were not designed to support this kind of logging (no storage capacity, limited CPU, etc.)

      All it would take at this point is a single wagging tongue or a Wikileaks dump to break the whole thing open. Since we've seen this happen for much smaller wiretapping deployments, I'm skeptical that you could pull anything like it off without everybody knowing.

      What you can do is monitor trunk lines (which is what happened in the case of the Folsom Street tap, mentioned above) and you can certainly build your own wireless interception hardware. But this is a very different thing than what TFA claims.

  2. Just how much storage capacity would one require? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone correct me. It just doesn't seem feasible.

  3. Seems unlikely by asmkm22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure what he's saying is true, in a very broad sense. Cell phone conversations, texts, and major/popular version of things like video chat (skype), IM (yahoo messenger), and general social media (facebook, twitter, etc).

    This guy seems to be implying that the government has some kind of man-in-middle technology that intercepts and records *all* traffic, which simply isn't true. Unfortunately, either he or the news agency is trying to paint the whole thing as just that.

    1. Re:Seems unlikely by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I don't doubt it at all. Maybe they can't get every little scrap but you can bet that anything they can get they will get. I wouldn't doubt that they have a lot more capability for this than you think either. I remember what was state of the art 30 years ago in the commercial world and it's incredible the changes and I'm more than confident that intelligence gathering has made at least as many leaps and bounds.

    2. Re:Seems unlikely by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This guy seems to be implying that the government has some kind of man-in-middle technology that intercepts and records *all* traffic, which simply isn't true.

      The majority of the internet goes over telecom links. The few parts of it that don't, almost always have at least one hop that transits one of the major carriers networks. They don't have to monitor "all" traffic. They just have to monitor one of the hops in the chain.

      All IP traffic can be reduced to a stream. TCP/IP has some extra error-correction options to keep it all in order, but a stream is a stream nonetheless. And when you start looking at very large data sets, you're going to quickly discover that the majority of it is just a copy of another set of data.

      People here seem to think that monitoring all network traffic is unrealistic because of the storage considerations, but they don't have to store every byte; Just the unique bytes. If you download the CNN homepage, the storage application doesn't need to hold onto that entire transaction; It can just record the headers and timestamp, and then reference the same stream that a few hundred thousand other people also downloaded.

      Most of the internet's traffic isn't encrypted, and so the amount of entropy on it is low, despite the very high bandwidth. This statistical fact paired with shannon's laws, which in turn are based on the laws of thermodynamics, provide the basis of a practical surveillance solution.

      When you add in intelligent filtering, the amount of data to be stored drops even more. You probably don't need to worry about terrorists communicating via Netflix for example; And that makes up a significant chunk of internet traffic (look it up; it's a surprise).

      The other thing about intelligence assets is that they all have a 'use by' date. The more time goes by, the less valuable the data becomes. Eventually, you reach a point of diminishing returns; That is the point at which you can safely delete the data. It doesn't matter whether it contained terrorist communications or the next 9/11 or not... if you haven't found it by the cutoff time, it's worthless.

      Combine these attributes and what this man is saying is, in fact, achievable. Now... processing that data and turning into useful, timely, and accurate intelligence... that, people, is a whole 'nother can of worms. And realistically, where the bulk of the resources is going to be. Storage is a non-starter. Analysis is the bitch of it.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Seems unlikely by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Tracert is ICMP, and can easily be routed differently than other traffic. ICMP also relies on hops telling you that they exist, both by generating an ICMP response and by decrementing the TTL. It also wont have any way of knowing whether a switchport is being mirrored (in fact, there is no technical way for an end user to discover that).

    4. Re:Seems unlikely by swilver · · Score: 2

      Most of the internet's traffic isn't encrypted, and so the amount of entropy on it is low

      Most of the internet's traffic however is compressed, on which the entropy is high. Voice communications and video streams are definitely all compressed. Web pages can be sent zipped and often are.

      A lot of content is also dynamic, containing timestamps, unique identifiers or personalisation. Webpages with any dynamic content (like a page from CNN) is likely to have subtle differences each time they're requested, making deduplication harder.

  4. Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Either this is true and so secret even most of law enforcement doesn't have access or it simply isn't true. Having run a large enough telecom operation to deal with CALEA I can say for sure that law enforcement very much needed our help to do anything with our customers' communications. Not only did they need to come to us with proper warrants in the first place, but they barely had enough technology sense to be able to do anything with it. Anything more complicated than taps and CDRs never even came up.

  5. Citizen reply. by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Clemente: 'No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.' 'All of that stuff' â" meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on U.S. soil, with or without a search warrant â" 'is being captured as we speak.' 'No digital communication is secure,' by which he means not that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: all digital communications â" meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like â" are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is."

    Dear US official;

    All of my communications are sent via encrypted proxy, and set to stream constantly. The proxy dumps into Tor and a half-dozen other networks. I originally did this for shits and giggles, to see how hard it would be. I will admit the latency is a bit higher than doing it locally, but it is very usable in spite of this. I also signed up for the Tor Cloud project and run an EC2 micro-instance to help others do the same.

    Originally, I just did this as an experiment, but after reading things like what you're saying and realizing that we've become a surveillance state on par with Iran, China, and North Korea (where did they get their filtering and monitoring hardware from again? Oh right: We gave it to them), I decided to keep it.

    I don't do anything special with my super duper encrypted "all the things" setup. I wish I could say I was some elite ninja hacker or something, but all I really do is browse internet forum sites and read the BBC news, and you know, download a few TV shows here and there. I'm one of those people that doesn't have anything to hide per-se, but when I live under the tyranny of a government that has turned their citizens into the enemy -- the attitude that we're all criminals or potential criminals, and must be monitored pre-emptively, I feel like it's my duty to frustrate the hell out of people like you.

    So I have been helping friends, family, and strangers, set their computers up the same way. Yeah, I know, some of them will probably use their newfound freedom and anonymity for evil, but frankly, even a terrorist attack a week and all the rantings in the world from you (that may even be justified) about how criminals can use this technology for their own nefarious purposes, doesn't deter me.

    You crossed a line; Morally, ethically, constitutionally. By criminalizing the average citizen, you have become a bigger danger than all the terrorists, all the "real" criminals. You are corrupt, dangerous, and seek to undermine our democratic way of life. You hide in the shadows and see conspiracies everywhere, and are convinced of your own righteous cause. You are as dangerous as a religious fundamentalist, because just like their dogmas, yours demands absolute purity. There will always be more justifications to invade the privacy of others.

    So I will continue to teach anyone who wants to, how to fight back against your tyranny. You're a threat to the way of life of not just myself, but my peers. You're a danger to all Americans -- you view us as the enemy. Your own people.

    You've lost your way.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Citizen reply. by Technician · · Score: 2

      Might want to watch this Defcon presentation. Trusting a random tor node is a bad idea.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLt_uqSCEUA

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:Citizen reply. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not that America is perfect, but you have no fucking idea what tyranny is.

      tyr-an-ny, n.: (source: dictionary.com)

      1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

      "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

      2. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.

      "meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on U.S. soil, with or without a search warrant -- 'is being captured as we speak.'"

      3.undue severity or harshness.

      "'No, welcome to America."

      Would you care to revise your statement, Mr. Internet Pundit?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Citizen reply. by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you written a detailed HOWTO article? That would be more helpful than just helping your immediate acquaintances.

    4. Re:Citizen reply. by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear US official; All of my communications are sent via encrypted proxy, and set to stream constantly. The proxy dumps into Tor and a half-dozen other networks.

      Dear girlintraining,

      We're in ur USB keyboard driver

      Recordin all ur passwerds

      - lolMIBs

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Citizen reply. by thoth · · Score: 2

      (where did they get their filtering and monitoring hardware from again? Oh right: We gave it to them)

      You might want to address your "open letter to a US official" to corporate America as well... they're happily selling the tools of oppression for profit. Come to think of it, they make big profits off selling guns and ammo as well.

    6. Re:Citizen reply. by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      It's actually worse then that in China. I read about some version of a Chinese town hall meeting were the local authority asked a guy there what he thought about a religious cult. Some form of Buddhism that believes in what not. There had been some conflict with members of this religion and the authorities before. The guy said he didn't think anything bad about the cult. They then proceeded to beat the guy senseless charge him with insanity and drag him off to prison.

      He died a few months later of self induced starvation after repeated near fatal beatings. Stuff like that is pretty commonplace over there for reasons we would consider trivial or arbitrary over here. And mostly because we would rightly stand up for each other in the States.

      It's not that bad yet. But I would like to politely remind you all how quickly it could end up there if we get so polarized as to see each other as enemies when were really not. 1st world problems are indeed 1st world. But by fixing 1st world problems we provide an opportunity for others and lesson the overall oppression of the world.

      There's a lot of 1st world problems with outsourcing and corporations and sweatshops and cheap products. By not focusing on those rather then directly complaining about whats happening outside of our immediate perception and control. How else can we affect change?

      So yep. I don't blame people for bitchin when they see injustice.

  6. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's also wrong. I worked for a regional non-Bell telco. We didn't capture anything that wasn't ordered by a court order, and even then, only the bare minumum to meet the court order.

    Maybe his statement should have instead been "the Bells, Verizon, and TWC capture all and forward it to the government." I've heard rumors of that related to AT&T, but never any confirmation. But to say "all" is simply false. Maybe they keep all they get, but I know for a fact they don't get "all".

  7. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We didn't capture anything that wasn't ordered by a court order, and even then, only the bare minumum to meet the court order.

    You didn't need to capture anything. According to him, the government was doing it for you. (Or rather, for them.)

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  8. Re:And to think they told meg... by flayzernax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ahhh if only the government would be so kind as to freely back up all the classic usenet celebrity fakes of Gillian Anderson and provide them free of charge on the open internet as a public service. This world would be on the right path indeed.

  9. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by coastwalker · · Score: 2

    Er, you folk all asleep or something? "FBI Confirms 'Magic Lantern' Project Exists. And Carnivore gets renamed DCS1000" quote from 2001.

    The only argument still going on is whether to let the local traffic department mine the data and Jail the lot of you. Oh and to admit that they collect the data so that the phone conversation can be played in front of the judge before sentencing.

    How naive can you people get? its been bloody obvious for years that "Terrorists" have been caught before they did any harm using their communications. Doing the conventional police work to get a conviction must be a right pain in the proverbial. No wonder every police force on the planet desperately wants this data to be allowed in court.

    Remember folks, you've got nothing to feat if you've got nothing to hide from data mining applications. They only have the last ten years worth anyway so whats the problem?

    OK I might be exaggerating a bit. but by how much?

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  10. Re:Just how much storage capacity would one requir by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

    Pshaw. I've got 26 fault-tolerant terabytes just for my media. Every piece of hardware is available from regular vendors like newegg, amazon, microcenter, etc. It fits in a mid-tower case with room to spare and the capacity could be doubled by switching to 4tb drives.

    Google was expected to pass an exabyte of data years ago. Amazon's somewhere around that range with their cloud services. Facebook claims a petabyte of duckface pics and videos. And those are companies that are designed to be making a profit. Government agencies don't have to worry about things like profit.

    The question isn't whether it's feasible to store that much data but whether the government is capable of managing the creation of such a data center. They don't have a great record when it comes to IT projects. At least not public-facing ones.

  11. Re:ps. by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    unless of course the freedoms that you want are verboten by that power..

  12. Re:Timothy stories by chrismcb · · Score: 2

    No one else would post such obvious crap.

    eh?
    it doesn't matter whether you agree with it, or not. It doesn't matter who posted in on slashdot. The fact remains a former FBI official made this statement, not once, but twice, to CNN. Is it true? who knows, but don't go and blame the messenger.

  13. but but but by coffee-breaks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and here I thought USA was the country of "freedom and democracy" and was so much better than China??? Was I lied to then????

  14. Re:Timothy stories by Proudrooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the FBI might not be the sharpest tool in the shed they have infinite resources thanks to the national security black budget. Granted if you have a private network that doesn't peer with any of the big backbones like AT&T then your a probably safe. Once your voice/data hops onto a major backbone like AT&T your data has been sold to the US Government. There are even allegation that this system is contributing names to the no-fly list through heuristic language analysis of voice traffic. To see if you networks are safe, use the word "bomb" as often as you can and if you aren't added to the no-fly list, your networks are probably safe :)

    I think the real solution to the problem is to start generating massive amounts of meaningless data until the spooks run out of storage.

    Security and Privacy are an illusion. Welcome to 1984 about three decades late.

  15. Re:Just how much storage capacity would one requir by flayzernax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They do have good off line secret installations. Where security is really important. I went to Ft Huachuca for computer security training and they did a fairly decent job for low level IT staff there. The instructors and some of the other people at that base genuinely knew what they were doing.

    DoD care a lot less about every day logistics systems for barracks assignments then they do about keeping under wraps their mission planning or god knows what else, I couldn't get anything out of anyone that mattered.

    I'm no longer serving. But you can rest assured there are some in the service that are good at what they do.

  16. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On what. I've seen the infrastructure. There were no unexpected splitters in the fiber. No unexplained connections in a router. If they tapped everything already, why did I have a dedicated CALEA box and such? It makes no sense, and is simply false.

  17. Re:Logistically impractical by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Think of the sheer amount of storage, electricity, infrastructure, personal, computing resources and so on that you would need in order to perform this feat. The numbers would be boggling and would account for a significant portion of the worldwide sales of all hard drives, tape back ups etc, etc.

    Well, the internet was clocking about 21 exabytes per month in 2010. However, the overwhelming majority of that traffic is redundant; if you remove the redundancy in the data set and then compress it, you're probably looking at less than an exabyte of data over the public internet. You can reduce that further with whitelists; Traffic from Netflix, for example, is probably not going to contain super secret terrorist communications.

    So let's say you can cut that down to only record the most relevant 5%. That's about 1 exabyte. How much would that cost? Well, in 2008, they guesstimated this to be about $400 million. A single stealth bomber costs about $2.1 billion; So the yearly storage costs of "the internet" is about 2 stealth bombers. -_-

    So at least as far as the data storage is concerned, I think it's well within the government's budget. Now, making that data usable and analysis of it... hooo boy... that's gonna be the bitch of it. But storage? Solved.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  18. lost email? by hendrikboom · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could I ask them to restore that email I accidentally deleted last week?

  19. Re:Logistically impractical by Proudrooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, you mean a data center like this can't handle the traffic?

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

    and the 5 million people (as of 2011) with security clearances aren't enough?

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/security-clearances-increasing/

    and the NSA recruiting at Defcon and math colleges all around the country isn't happening?

    http://www.federalnewsradio.com/411/2890348/NSA-hiring-reforms-serve-as-model-for-government

    These guys have cash and are all of their activities are shielded under FISA and the National Security Act and State Secrets Privilege.

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapping

    It's happening, it is a reality, and it is more than possible. Even with an inside whistle blower, the courts will not limit the power of the government to spy on us.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

    The only thing we really have going for us is the Catch-22 on the use of the data. If it is every used in a trial, chain of custody and 4th amendment issues likethe exclusionary rule will suppress the evidence since it was obtained without a warrant. The only thing that stands in the way of the NSA and fully implementing 1984 is the 4th amendment.

  20. Not true by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work for a moderate sized phone company. Customers in the millions. The government has no link into our systems. WE can't even record all of your calls and monitor all your internet traffic. Think about it this way, your ISP likely doesn't even have enough bandwidth to provide you with the speed you're paying for some of the times... Netflix on a friday night for example. Do you really think they have the extra bandwidth to ship all that data off to the government as well? Phone calls are a whole other animal, and are mostly still analog. Duplicating that would involve upgrading the switch... an at least 30yr old piece of obsolete equipment... It just doesn't make sense. Sure, the government could pay for all this stuff... but it would be a HUGE project. Everyone in the company would know. The equipment in our data center is very obvious... we all know what each piece does. There's no mysterious black box in the corner... and there's no way they could be tracking everything without us knowing. There would be at least 1 piece of weird equipment somewhere. I've neither seen nor heard of any such equipment. On top of that, all that data would be meaningless without access to our databases. Capturing the data or phone calls raw would just give you a mac address or phone number. You wouldn't know who was using those numbers. So you'd have to query our database... a database that changes regularly... new systems come online all of the time. So they'd have to have access from outside of the company, so holes in our firewall, make SOAP requests into our system, Have an active user account, make requests to dozens of different DBs, hundreds of Tables, know how all their joins work, know when system changes go in, and on and on... No such thing could happen without the entire company knowing about it. It's just not possible.

    1. Re:Not true by blackanvil · · Score: 2

      Agreed, I've worked for several ISPs and a couple of telcos, and while if the gov't orders a monitor or tap, the capability is there, unless so ordered there just isn't reason, space, power, or spare engineering capability monitor everything. Fiber is expensive, so are telco-grade switches and routers, and space in a telco hotel is not cheap -- and neither is the talent to run all that. I've built backbone systems, there's no mysterious "government fiber out" port on those builds -- and if the government orders a tap, they pay for the wire out, and the configuration to dupe the feed is very specific as to data type and what's being sent out.

    2. Re:Not true by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. If the phone is working off a remote, then yes, it hits a DSLAM, gets converted to digital, is sent up a trunk to the switch then gets down converted back to analog before re-entering the switch. This is not on any network or anything. It's just a point to point data line. The majority of the phone lines coming off the switch however are serviced directly by the switch and never converted to digital. This is because the switch is placed in the most population dense area intentionally. Remotes are expensive. The vast majority of phone calls happen inside the switch... local to local. So they literally go in and out analog, there is no way they could be intercepted unless the government had equipment on the home itself or every number was re-routed in the switch so it would re-send the audio of that call somewhere else. We can do that... but the switch again is old, we can only do it to a few numbers at a time and require a warrant to do so (I used to do switch programming) The number of times we received a request to do such a thing in the 2 years I did that job I could count on 1 hand. Every time it was a domestic dispute where the husband was holding his wife/ex hostage and the police were outside.

    3. Re:Not true by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      The fact that you're so naive about how modern trunking works and yet you're still commenting is sad. We don't use AT&T (or rarely) They are expensive. Also most phone calls are STILL local. They happen entirely within our own equipment. All long distance calls that go from one of our territories to another, again, all happen within our own equipment... because it's cheaper. Even calls that happen into some of AT&T, SPRINT and others may still happen entirely within our own equipment if the customers CLEC. (though that last mile happens on AT&T stuff)

      Modern long distance switches carriers at the point of call. We have several trunks, leading from place to place, rarely with any company you'd have ever heard of. They all compete for our business. When you place a call, the carriers are poled, and the one offering the cheapest rate is picked. Basically they are load balancing, as their bandwidth gets chewed up the price goes up. When phone calls are transferred there is no identifying data sent that could identify the caller. This is why Caller ID spoofing is still a problem. The phone company is billed for the long distance and it's up to them to track their customers calls. So even if the government were recording the call they'd not know who it was from without access to our billing records... and not our customer billing records, our internal financials.

      The internet may be different. It's hard to avoid the large carriers in that regard. But again, remember, all they have at that point is your IP witch is almost useless in any real sense. So they'd need access to our DHCP records. I would directly know about that, I've maintained those records in the past. Not only would I know about external access to those records, they are maintained in such a way that... well basically it's a mess (basically because we don't have a need to log it other than DMCA complaints) So even if the government did have access to them it would a mess for them to decode them into anything meaningful.

  21. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by coastwalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In 2007 we were using "A single NarusInsight machine can monitor traffic equal to the maximum capacity (10 Gbit/s) of around 39,000 256k DSL lines or 195,000 56k telephone modems. But, in practical terms, since individual internet connections are not continually filled to capacity, the 10 Gbit/s capacity of one NarusInsight installation enables it to monitor the combined traffic of several million broadband users.". The Wikipedia page doesn't seem to have any real updates since 2007. Of course traffic has increased since then, but I doubt they bother to store streaming video of Justin Bieber from YouTube - which is reputedly 98% of all bandwidth consumption apart from pron.

      What was the size of the LHC storage by the way? Oh, that's right, in 2010 it was "About 50PB of tape storage, handled by a set of robotic storage hardware. Still, they've been finding that disk storage is working well, and have scaled that up to 20PB worth of storage." http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/08/lhc-computing-grid-pushes-petabytes-of-data-beats-expectations/

    However the good news is that in 2011 "Our annual data consumption was estimated at 9.57 zettabytes" on the internet. A difference of 21-15=6 orders of magnitude. http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/07/our-annual-data-consumption-estimated-at-9-57-zettabytes-or-9-57/ So unless NarusInsight can find and throw away a million times more Bieber than your snarky comments on Sub Reddit, "Revolutionary rodents against the government" they don't have that on disk yet, But they could probably record all telephone conversation.

    I seem to recall that rumor used to have it that only all calls in and out of the USA were monitored, it would not be at all surprising to find that the capability to monitor all internal calls were available. The only reason it might not be happening is that the transcontinental calls route through a finite set of fiber or satellite links, whereas call data on the internet in the USA could route through a very much higher set of nodes that would need to be monitored to capture the data.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  22. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by pugugly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can't 'know' this is false, but . . . we can look at what the implications would be if this were true.

    This would require vast storage, incredible database crossreferencing, would imply certain kinds of information be available not only without warrants, but without ever needing to pull the original data. Not only would warrants be redundant, so would National Security Letters.

    All without a single patriot in the government going public and blowing the lid off this, yet simultaneously putting this information in the hands of someone willing to shoot their mouth off on CNN.

    Can, in theory, all this be true? Sure. It could happen. *Practically* can all this be true? No - too many conspirators have to work invisibly, never tipping their hands, never making a mistake. Just don't buy it.

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  23. Re:Just how much storage capacity would one requir by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the internet, 640 terabytes of data is transferred every minute. That means in a year, you have 330 exabytes of data. Not only that, you need the infrastructure to transfer it. You can deduplicate and stuff, but even deduplicating that much data is not exactly an afternoon hack.

    Think of that: you're adding 640 terabytes to your database every minute.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  24. Re:Just how much storage capacity would one requir by HybridST · · Score: 2

    Round the living population up to 8 Billion. At one bit per person, not including lookup tables and such, it seems to me that it would amount to about one billion bytes or about one GB. Just a bit more than a few floppies...

    --
    Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
  25. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

    > I seem to recall that rumor used to have it that only all calls in and out of the USA were monitored,

    That looks like the NSA's legal requirements to monitor only foreign communications. They were prohibited from monitoring domestic communications, that was the responsibility of the FBI. Unfortunately, "Homeland Security" was created in the wake of 9/11 specifically to merge and organize data among the various intelligence services, and part of the result is that you can't effectively prosecute one agency for overstepping its bounds by going to the other agencies. They can all rely on Homeland Security to cover for them with "Patriot Act" court free search orders, or groundless "national security" orders that prevent even disclosing that your clients have been monitored.

    Homeland Security is an extremely dangerous concentration of monitoring and investigation power. I sincerely hope that the antipathy of the more specialized intelligence agencies continues to hinder their growth.

  26. hepting v at&t, trailblazer, turbulence by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i know that you work some place and thats impressive but there are just mounds of evidence that prove you are wrong. and several other comment threads above with the same idea.

    "i work for a telco, there is no way this is possible"

    "ok thats great, except for several well known court cases that prove the exact opposite of what you are saying"

  27. Re:Logistically impractical by pregister · · Score: 3, Informative

    From what I've read, the legal argument against this being an illegal search is that the entire dataset isn't searched, it is stored. They store the communications. When they want access to the data on a particular person they get a search warrant to access the stored data. I don't agree with that, but that seems to be the theory.

    Here is a short video on an NSA whistleblower about the Utah datacenter and the types of things they can do with that much data.

  28. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This would require vast storage, incredible database crossreferencing, would imply certain kinds of information be available not only without warrants, but without ever needing to pull the original data. Not only would warrants be redundant, so would National Security Letters.

    No. Data taken from warrants and NSLs can be used in court and the FBI can admit they have it and not worry about giving away their capabilities by acting as if they have it. Data taken in a dragnet like this could only be used secretly.

    All without a single patriot in the government going public and blowing the lid off this, yet simultaneously putting this information in the hands of someone willing to shoot their mouth off on CNN.

    Except that it has been revealed. People just seem to keep forgetting, like they forget the Tuskeegee experiment, like they forget the Gulf of Tonkin "incident", or various other nasty things the government has done.

  29. Re:the NSA has a shadow market of IT work by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

    if you read James Bamford's books, you will begin to realize that most of the major US computer companies, from Cray to IBM, were propped up directly and secretly by the NSA to build supercomputers for it, secretly, years before the technology would reach the public.

    I don't need a book to know the government funds technology improvements; They freely admit it. It's not exactly super spy secret stuff -- they created the internet. It's a safe bet that they continue to work on similar things.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  30. Re:Just how much storage capacity would one requir by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know, but if you think of it, you're going to need something like the total storage space of everyone else on the internet.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  31. (OT) mod DOWN by mha · · Score: 2

    Why do moronic moderators keep modding up idiotic statements such as these from people who think absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Who ARE those guys, here "Charliemopps", that they think they should have known everything? Since when is THEIR cooperation and knowledge necessary? Even if they knew all that was going on everywhere in their OWN company (which not even the CEO does), that company is not connected to others, right?

    This comment is STUPID STUPID STUPID.

    Sorry, I've had enough after reading through them and now can't help it. I'm not all that mad at Mr "Charliemopps", everyone is entitled to say something very stupid at least once every hour, but that a number of random people who happen to be mods today find this garbage "informative"...

  32. cell phones by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

    But cell phones typically use only 8Kbps "on air". This means that a factor 8 compression of "uncompressed" 64Kbps is feasible and that's probably what they achieve, maybe even more, if they wanted to record it all.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  33. Re:Each conversation is at least 1 minute by bingoUV · · Score: 2

    Any silence during those calls is not recorded

    A majority of telephone talk time is women talking, at least a woman. There is NO silence, AT ALL. Though sometimes both ends are talking together.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  34. Re:I should be shocked and appalled... by Drakonblayde · · Score: 2

    Actually, it's been my experience that the folks who work on the physical infrastructure usually are the ones who know where the taps are with the best degree of accuracy. They have to, so that they don't inadvertently screw with the link.

  35. They Might Be Giants (film) by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    holy shit, the whole internet is rife with stenographic messages disguised as spelling errors! Thanks for validating my schizophrenia!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff