'They' know I've just typed this...

[SteveC]

Thought it might be of interest:

http://www.newscientist.com/dailynew...p?id=ns9999789

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[xortam]

Heard of Carnivore?

[Gurm]

I always preface any SERIOUS discussion of this sort of thing with a question:

Are you aware of the sheer immensity of the amount of data we're talking about?

And are you also aware that routes are not fixed? Each route variation adds an exponent to the equation.

Do the math and you will discover that there aren't enough computers in the entire world to monitor AND decipher all that network traffic.

If you're willing to do the math and THEN want to argue this with me, I can give more concrete reasons. But let's leave the conspiracy theories out of this for now folks.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Technoid]

It's true, I saw it in "enemy of the state", I use ROT13 on everything on my HDD so they cant read it... or was it PGP...

Average Paranoid Internet User

[Gurm]

It's funny. We're supposed to believe that the US Government (or some other "secret" organization) has the computing power (and infrastructure) to read and decipher quadrillions of bytes from every major Internet route every minute... yet they DON'T have the computing power to break PGP? Puh-lease.

- Gurm

P.S. In case anyone missed it, I'm being SARCASTIC. To my knowledge, nobody has yet broken even a single 4K PGP key, nevermind doing so arbitrarily. But this pales in comparison to the amount of CPU power needed to go through all that data.

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[The PIT]

Some poor basterd is going to have a boring time going through all the drivel that floats around the net.

[Technoid]

On the other hand..

IF NSA could break PGP they woulden't tell..

And I was also being sarcastic in my previous reply..

[mdhome]

I have heard the the French are a little pissed because they tried bribing a Saudi official to buy Airbus airliners and the US discovered the details using echelon. End result, sale goes to US.

As a means of industrial espionage/sabotage it could be very useful. But then maybe I am reading to many Nexus magazines and the French dont really bribe people and the US dont use their technology to get insider info to secure deals.

I believe Echelon exists but they are probably selective in what the *tape*.

regards MD

[Gurm]

They could SELECTIVELY monitor CERTAIN computers, sure.

But the idea of ARBITRARILY monitoring THE ENTIRE net is just an absurdity.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Liquid Snake]

Yes, that's true. Monitoring the entire internet is impossible. Not only that, it would be boring, even if you could. You'd have to go through all the shit on the net first, before you *might* find something interesting.

[xortam]

"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!"

PGP ... broken!
Mass info gathering ... happening!

I know people who have been involved in these efforts.

Haven't you heard McNealy tell everyone that there is no privicay on the Net?!

[rubank]

Gurm,

I don´t think you know what you´re talking about.

The british GHCQ alone, just one of the parties in UKUSA (est. 1947), have 15000 employees and a hefty budget. They even brag about their technical capacity <a href="http://www.gchq.gov.uk/about/technologyindex.html"target=_blank>here</a>

NSA has acknowledged that if it was a listed company it would be among the top ten on the Fortune 500 list, which says something on the size of their budget and staff.

And some of their tech comes from <a href="http://www.appsig.com"target=_blank>AST</a>

This doesn´t prove anything, of course, but the subject is so vast any attempt to cover it here i futile. But on the existens of "Echelon" there is hardly any doubt.

rubank

[This message has been edited by rubank (edited 29 May 2001).]

[Gurm]

Ok, I figured you folks would have some brains, but I guess I have to spell it out.

Answer me the following questions otherwise you can't discuss this without being referred to as a feeble-minded sheep:

1. How many computers are connected to the Internet. I want a REAL guess. Not some stupid number.

2. What is the total aggregate sum of data passing through the "Internet" every second?

3. What is the average amount of CPU power needed to decode one megabit of random TCP/IP traffic?

Answer those questions and then MAYBE we can have this discussion. Until then you are simply a feeble minded conspiracy theorist raving about things beyond your comprehension.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[mdhome]

Chaps
I think they are being selective in what they look for. I read several years ago that there was a large (and i mean large) computer room underground in the states that eavesdropped on specific words. When these words occurred the messages would be flagged for further investigation. Considering the hardware that was being talked about isnt it just feasible?

reards MD

[az]

I wanted to ignore this thread, but I've read once about chips that are specifically designed to comb through written words and not only sort them by mere word lists but also by sentence structures, and do so at an AMAZING speed. It was in a report about Echelon at www.heise.de/tp/ IIRC.

I'll try and ignore this thread again now

AZ