Is privacy coming back?

[David Weaver]

Phil, I think you're very naive, and not fully grasping human nature. Maybe we'll remember to bring this thread back up as more stuff comes up. I don't know what's going on, just as you don't, but I'd bet the truth is closer to more than less. The trouble is nobody has the incentive to tell us the truth, as there is no real oversight other than a rubber stamp "court".

[Scott Shepherd]

Here is the thing, for these conspiracy theorists to be right, for all these conversations to have been recorded, you'd need the cooperation of at least hundreds of civilians, many not even U.S. citizens.

They'd all need to keep their mouths shut about making changes to accommodate the spooks. Think of the engineers that worked at places like Northern Telecom, Siemens, AT&T, the hundreds (thousands?) of field network engineers, they'd all have to keep their mouths shut.

And if this has been going on for 15 years, they'd all have to keep quiet for the entire duration.

And then you see stories like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-nsa-scandal/

Where the NSA is asking for metadata from Verizon. Why bother? If they already have 80% of the voice, they have the metadata, too.

Lots of exaggerated claims, people love conspiracy theories, but most don't hold up to even mild scrutiny.

How can it be proven. Every time someone tells the truth, you say they are making it up and if it were true, more people would say so. What's the threshold? 1 person? 2 people? 50 people? 100 people? 5000 people? It only takes one person to tell the truth. The fact that an entire organization who's funding relies on people not holding them accountable stand up and say "that one guy is lying" is a shock to you? It's not one guy. It's not a conspiracy theory when the documents exist and show that it's happening. The very person that said he designed the system and it's being used in the USA is discounted by you. If the guy that says he designed the system and it is being used isn't enough proof for you, then I'm not sure there's much I can say to change your mind.

You have to put pieces of the puzzle together as well. The data center I linked to can hold all the data ever created to date. If you think they just built it to capture metadata, which is tiny in file size, then there's nothing I can do to change that.

Let's see, the person that wrote the program says it's being used, the documents Snowden exposed said the program exists (Snowden didn't make those documents up, they were actual documents from the NSA, not some made up, make believe conspiracy theory guy using Photoshop), Congress people say it exists, former NSA employees say it exists, there's a data center being built by the NSA that can hold more data than any other system ever created by man, and yet it's all just a pie in the sky, wild fantasy that nut job fringe people believe.

Yeah.....alrighty then......

[Phil Thien]

Phil, I think you're very naive, and not fully grasping human nature. Maybe we'll remember to bring this thread back up as more stuff comes up. I don't know what's going on, just as you don't, but I'd bet the truth is closer to more than less. The trouble is nobody has the incentive to tell us the truth, as there is no real oversight other than a rubber stamp "court".

http://www.deadzones.com/2011/05/how...l#.VCx9fGd0yrc

900 billion cell calls per year. That is only cell calls, and only in the USA. If the average call is sixty seconds long, and if we're encoding at 2kbps, we'd have 13,824,000,000,000,000 bytes (check my math), or 13.824 petabytes. Say were using today's 3TB hard drives in large SAN (Storage Area Networks). We'd need 4608 hard drives with no overhead for redundancy (much less the filesystem).

And that is today. So go back to 2007 when they introduced the first 1TB hard drive. Now you need 13,824 hard drives. More actually, this is best-case scenario and not real-world.

And that is only cell calls. Now add-in all the landline calls (all the business lines). Oh, and so far we're only talking USA calls, they really want (and can have) the foreign calls. So add all that in, LOL.

Back in 2006, the DoD was starting on the world's largest SAN (Storage Area Network):

http://www.csoonline.com/article/212...a-network.html

"The Meta SAN will store many petabytes (millions of gigabytes) of both administrative and mission-critical command and control data, and be put together by Brocade and reVision, an IT consultancy."

It was a 17k-port system, so it would not even have had enough capacity to store cell and landline calls from the USA for a year. It could handle a fraction of just the USA data, never mind the foreign data. And of course, they (NSA) have been archiving data, too.

Seriously, the #'s are so far off between was has been claimed and what is actually doable that it is a bit mind-boggling to me that people would think this stuff is being archived somewhere.

And I haven't even done bandwidth. All that data has to go to data warehouses. Remember when IOS 7 came out (just last year) and AT&T (largest carrier in the world, doesn't need to peer with anyone they're so big) struggled with the network load? Well, those cell calls for the USA alone amounts to approx. 4.7-GB per second, about a DVD of incoming data. Every. Single. Second. Just for USA cell calls, not landline, not overseas.

We can forget human nature and look at what is and has been possible from a technology perspective.

Now, they (NSA) may be marching in the direction of wanting to archive every single call. Technology will eventually make that possible.

But some of these people are saying it has been going on for 15 years?

My calculator says "no."

Maybe my calculator is naïve.

[Phil Thien]

How can it be proven. Every time someone tells the truth, you say they are making it up and if it were true, more people would say so. What's the threshold? 1 person? 2 people? 50 people? 100 people? 5000 people? It only takes one person to tell the truth. The fact that an entire organization who's funding relies on people not holding them accountable stand up and say "that one guy is lying" is a shock to you? It's not one guy. It's not a conspiracy theory when the documents exist and show that it's happening. The very person that said he designed the system and it's being used in the USA is discounted by you. If the guy that says he designed the system and it is being used isn't enough proof for you, then I'm not sure there's much I can say to change your mind.

You have to put pieces of the puzzle together as well. The data center I linked to can hold all the data ever created to date. If you think they just built it to capture metadata, which is tiny in file size, then there's nothing I can do to change that.

Let's see, the person that wrote the program says it's being used, the documents Snowden exposed said the program exists (Snowden didn't make those documents up, they were actual documents from the NSA, not some made up, make believe conspiracy theory guy using Photoshop), Congress people say it exists, former NSA employees say it exists, there's a data center being built by the NSA that can hold more data than any other system ever created by man, and yet it's all just a pie in the sky, wild fantasy that nut job fringe people believe.

Yeah.....alrighty then......

The data center you linked is brand new, and they (owners) won't give us any specifications. And it doesn't matter if it has the capacity to hold the data NOW, there wasn't the capacity to hold the data previously, so I doubt the data exists.

And that "guy," Binney, he isn't the guy that wrote anything being used. They picked another project, and he left, 15 years ago. His guesses of what is going on now aren't necessarily any better than anyone else's.

[Phil Thien]

You might just want to check that data- EVERY call made is being RECORDED. The Utah data center is said to have enough capacity to store everything ever created to date.

EVERY call IS being recorded. That's not even a point of debate at this point in time. It's been admitted in front on congress. The carriers have no say so in it. Screaming libertarians or not.

If you don't think this is happening, you need to look into a little more.

Here's the data center that's being built :

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

Here's how large it is, in terms of storage :

"the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (10²⁴ bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)"

It looks like everyone has gone, but in case anyone finds these things interesting...

Large storage systems are called SANs (Storage Area Networks). They use off-the-shelf technology in the form of hard drives, lots and lots of hard drives, and controllers that aggregate them into enormous volumes. The NSA uses SANs to store data. Everyone uses SANs to store data. Popular vendors of SANs are EMC, IBM, Cisco, etc.

But the largest conventional hard drives that could be used in SANs these days are approx. 6-TB in size. So in order to achieve one yottabyte, you'd need 166,666,666,666 hard drives. That is 166 billion hard drives.

So I'd say arguing that anyone is going for a yottabyte anytime soon is pretty sensationalistic. And when an author asserts something that is so easily debunked with a little math, you really have to wonder about the other stuff attributed to unnamed sources.

BTW, I hope you guys don't take my posts as being in favor of spying on U.S. citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm just saying, be a little skeptical of everything you read, that is all.

[David Weaver]

My calculator says "no."

Maybe my calculator is naïve.

Phil, you're getting too far into suppositions. Something is or it isn't, neither you nor I will know and at this point supposition doesn't really amount to much. Nobody would've believed they had the ability to store an entire foreign country's calls for 30 days, but they have it.

Arguing about it in the interim and coming up with straw scenarios to try to create an idealized notion that it's impossible or possible doesn't amount to much. It is or it isn't, and if is or isn't was easy to find out, we'd already know.

All I need to do to make sure that you don't talk as an administrator is tell you that I want the capability, that it's not being used or used only for calls with foreign targets (I could lie about that as the NSA, and who has jurisdiction to do anything about it) and that if you leak any details about it, you'll go to jail and compromise national security. You have no payoff to discuss.

I could also do it on the 20 nodes that have the most traffic instead of all of them, it wouldn't be materially different, and it would involve fewer exposures.

Do you see now how worthless it is to argue about whose calculator is more naive? It's completely pointless. I have no dog in the fight, I really don't care if they're recording my calls beyond the notion that it's fundamentally wrong and (at least historically) illegal for them to do it, and thus am not keen to argue it any further. What they do isn't going to change my behavior.

[Brian Elfert]

Sure, explain to me how you record something digitally without it being archived. Impossible. If it's written to a drive, it's been stored. That means, exactly what I said, that the calls are

Stuff can be recorded without being archived. Cockpit voice recorders store voice data, but they overwrite the data after 30 minutes. I don't know that there is a general definition of how long data has to be kept to be considered archived. I wouldn't consider data kept for seven days to be archived. A lot of companies that keep data long term will keep it on fast storage for 30 to 90 days and then move the data to slower storage for archive after that.

[Phil Thien]

Phil, you're getting too far into suppositions. Something is or it isn't, neither you nor I will know and at this point supposition doesn't really amount to much. Nobody would've believed they had the ability to store an entire foreign country's calls for 30 days, but they have it.

If someone had told me the NSA could record an entire foreign country's voice data for thirty days I'd have had no problem believing it. I may do a bit of math, but it would seem less preposterous than many of the other claims I've read.

Arguing about it in the interim and coming up with straw scenarios to try to create an idealized notion that it's impossible or possible doesn't amount to much. It is or it isn't, and if is or isn't was easy to find out, we'd already know.

The math clearly shows it is impossible, there is no need to consider that they've done something that is impossible.

All I need to do to make sure that you don't talk as an administrator is tell you that I want the capability, that it's not being used or used only for calls with foreign targets (I could lie about that as the NSA, and who has jurisdiction to do anything about it) and that if you leak any details about it, you'll go to jail and compromise national security. You have no payoff to discuss.

I'm not sure what you're saying there. But if you're saying that highly targeted illegal access of US conversations could occur, I have no doubt. In fact, the NSA has admitted there have been such abused, but they say they've identified them and disciplined the individuals (including termination).

I could also do it on the 20 nodes that have the most traffic instead of all of them, it wouldn't be materially different, and it would involve fewer exposures.

Do you see now how worthless it is to argue about whose calculator is more naive? It's completely pointless. I have no dog in the fight, I really don't care if they're recording my calls beyond the notion that it's fundamentally wrong and (at least historically) illegal for them to do it, and thus am not keen to argue it any further. What they do isn't going to change my behavior.

The calculator simply tells us whether the claims being made are technically achievable. If the calculator tells us they can't do what they're saying, then we have to question everything else from that source.

Anyone arguing anything to the contrary is to argue in favor of gullibility.

[David Weaver]

gullibility.

I think gullibility is the belief that their "punishments" go further than just being public relations moves.

Your definition of proof is pretty loose compared to what I'd call proof. Setting up a narrow set of variables for a scenario and calling it proof for a universe is not proof.

You and I don't even know what's legal and what's not because to my knowledge, FISA court decisions aren't public. They've made all sorts of decisions loosely describing things as being legal when no reasonable person would do so. They are a rubber stamp whose decisions don't get published. The conversations about harvesting all traffic at nodes and threatening criminal penalties for lack of compliance may not even be illegal.

[Phil Thien]

Stuff can be recorded without being archived. Cockpit voice recorders store voice data, but they overwrite the data after 30 minutes. I don't know that there is a general definition of how long data has to be kept to be considered archived. I wouldn't consider data kept for seven days to be archived. A lot of companies that keep data long term will keep it on fast storage for 30 to 90 days and then move the data to slower storage for archive after that.

If any of these sources had come out, for example, and said that the NSA is keeping their hands on the last 24 or 48 hours of all voice transmission they can get their hands on in the U.S., and they are trying to build systems to get more and archive it longer, then boy, I'd be very concerned about a statement like that.

Because now the source is stating something substantially less sensationalistic and quite possibly technically achievable.

But that doesn't seem to be happening. We keep getting these guys which seem to be relating Hollywood-type scenarios. And I guess that is because the technologically uninformed believe it, because what they know about technology comes from the movies.

"Sir, there is a firewall."

"Oh, just do a back door download of the security database."

"Good idea. Done, we're in."

[Phil Thien]

Your definition of proof is pretty loose compared to what I'd call proof. Setting up a narrow set of variables for a scenario and calling it proof for a universe is not proof.

Well if I'm going to be required to believe that the NSA is using alien technology to achieve the bombastic claims made by attention-starved alarmists, then I don't know the way forward.

I know a bit about non-alien technology, that is my trade.

[David Weaver]

Who meets that criteria here? I am not making any yottabyte claims, nor am I making the claim that they're recording every call in the US (which wouldn't require a yottabyte). They could do a material number and that'd be fine, and here's my hypothetical - they could collect all call records, which they do, and use that to determine where they point their resources in bulk collection, and collect some significant percentage as a rule. There is no natural law that says you'd need to know about it or that you'd be given the relevant specs.

I'm not sure if you're angry at people who have made more sensationalized claims that go to the ladder, so you categorize anyone who may say there's even a first rung or what, but the burden of proof for someone from your viewpoint (stating absolutes) is a lot higher than it is from my point (could be, we don't really know), and history would probably prove you wrong more than me because you've cornered yourself into saying definites about something you really don't know much about - other than what is publicly released.

[David Weaver]

I know a bit about non-alien technology, that is my trade.

A bit and everything are vastly different, and applying something to the extreme argument (all data archived permanently) and then suggesting complete proof for any scenario (collection and temporary storage and then archiving of calls, compressed or whatever) doesn't hold water.

I haven't related any "sensationalistic" scenarios, or hollywood anything, I'm literally saying they could employ the same thing here that they do in foreign countries and you will not know what they're doing until long after they do it. That's why I don't have any idea how you're so certain that your argument about "hollywoods" has anything to do with what I've said.

[Phil Thien]

A bit and everything are vastly different, and applying something to the extreme argument (all data archived permanently) and then suggesting complete proof for any scenario (collection and temporary storage and then archiving of calls, compressed or whatever) doesn't hold water.

Read message #86 in this thread.

I haven't related any "sensationalistic" scenarios, or hollywood anything, I'm literally saying they could employ the same thing here that they do in foreign countries and you will not know what they're doing until long after they do it. That's why I don't have any idea how you're so certain that your argument about "hollywoods" has anything to do with what I've said.

If I've specifically accused you of doing so (I don't think I have), then I apologize. But there are others contributing to this thread, and they are citing sources.

The problem with the sources cited is that the claims are over the top.

And we can't substitute more reasonable claims on behalf of those sources. We can't say, "well, what they say seems impossible or implausible, surely they meant this instead." We have to evaluate their statements on their merits.

FWIW, I absolutely agree that the NSA could employ the same techniques used on foreign soil right here in the US. And I agree we would really have no way of knowing, maybe ever.

But we can't cite absurd claims being made by sensationalistic journalists and their questionable sources as evidence that anything like that is going on. You may feel it is happening, I really have no idea if it is (I tend to think it isn't but it wouldn't take much of the right evidence to sway me), but nothing stated in this thread or any sources cited so far is any sort of proof that it is already occurring.

I hope that clears-up my position.

[Scott Shepherd]

If anyone is interested, here's a link to a pretty interesting interview with the guy that wrote the software. It was very interested to hear how things progressed. I found him to be a highly credible sounding person.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-binney/#seg19