4 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
That last message containing info on purported phone company monitoring activities was the biggest load of propagandist bullshit I think I've seen in a long time. I'm sure it generated the expected fear and paranoia amongst more ignorant people.
>That last message containing info on purported phone company monitoring >activities was the biggest load of propagandist bullshit I think I've seen >in a long time. >I'm sure it generated the expected fear and paranoia amongst more ignorant >people. This is not a constructive comment. What is your evidence that it is false? We should dissect the claims. |>Under an obscure |> pre-WWII ruling by the agency that is now the FCC... "No information may |> be encoded or transmitted over PUBLIC or PRIVATE forms of telephony or |> radio with the exception of those agencies involved in the National |> Security" a further designation goes on to say "with the exception of |> the MORSE system of 'transmittal', any communication that is not |> interpretable by the human ear is forbidden and unlawful." This kind of stuff seems to happen whether there are laws sanctioning it or not, but does anyone know what law is being referenced? On a general note, what would tend to validate/rebut the claim? First of all, the simple feasibility of such an operation must be called into question. There is a tremendous amount of data going over modems on public telephone lines. What is the chance that even a small fraction could be monitored? (And an even more infinitesmal fraction archived.) The claim has appeared here before that it is "trivial" for a government agency to scan for interesting keywords and sort the data based on that. But I think that even that would lead to loads of irrelevant crap and require an army of intelligence agents to sort. Where is this army? Also, the claims in the letter are referring to public telephone networks. Would this include all the networks comprising the Internet? If so, this multiplies the data volume immensely. How could anyone find anything useful in these massive streams? Granted, *very* sensitive information is probably contained within it, but how the heck could it be found efficiently? |> Your credit rating is also affected by your modem |> usage... if you ever get a copy of your credit history and find a |> listing that has HN06443 <--= this is a negative risk rating. or a code |> 87AT4 <---= an even more negative risk rating.... these will usually |> have no description on them... and if you inquire about them they will |> tell you that it just comes from the system that way. These claims that credit ratings are influenced by this secret information are rather questionable. What is the path from the decision to mark a record with a black mark to the private companies like TRW that record this? Which clients or sources of TRW or whatever are specifically those that monitor secret information? What exactly does he mean, "your credit rating is affected by your modem usage?" If anyone could refute or demonstrate the actual meaning of HN06443 and 87AT4 codes on credit reports (I've never seen a report or these codes), this would be a specific item to discredit, which would call into question the whole of the claims. |> The information gathered goes to 3 seperate database facilities...1 is |> codenamed Diana and is located in Brussels, the 2nd is named Fredrick |> and is located somewhere in Malaysia, the 3rd is named Elizabeth and is |> located in Boulder, Colorado. The information stored in these systems |> is accessable by the US Government, Interpol, Scotland Yard and various |> other such agencies. Regarding the claim that one major monitoring hub is code named "elizabeth" in Boulder Colorado. There is a government standards agency there, if I am not mistaken, I forget if it is NIST (?). Also, the National Center for Oceanic Research, which has very tremendous computing power (e.g. Cray YMP) is there also. In their tours they show massive archival storage areas, which they say record major amounts of global atmospheric data (e.g. temperatures, wind currents etc.) collected from satellites. These could conceivably be in part "covers" but the idea is also rather unimaginable. Can anybody report on agencies in the areas cited? There is the very specific claim of a carrier in Columbus Ohio. I propose that cypherpunks list be a central reporting place for what might be called "public counter spies" who report on the illicit activities of our governments. Its already largely in that area. If we get enough expertise, nonradicals, and infiltrators here we may be able to get better ideas of what the heck NSA really is doing, what kind of monitoring is really going on, what kind of cryptographic techniques can really be broken, etc.
> First of all, the simple feasibility of such an operation must be > called into question. There is a tremendous amount of data going > over modems on public telephone lines. What is the chance that > even a small fraction could be monitored? (And an even more > infinitesmal fraction archived.) The intelgence community get's what it want's. If congress wont allocate the funds, they'll import drugs to pay for it. I dought they can keep everything on file, but they certainly filter for interesting data. > The claim has appeared here before that it is "trivial" for a > government agency to scan for interesting keywords and sort the data > based on that. But I think that even that would lead to loads of > irrelevant crap and require an army of intelligence agents to sort. > Where is this army? Fort Mead, MD. > Also, the claims in the letter are referring to public telephone > networks. Would this include all the networks comprising the Internet? > If so, this multiplies the data volume immensely. How could anyone > find anything useful in these massive streams? Granted, *very* > sensitive information is probably contained within it, but how the heck > could it be found efficiently? A recent issue of Communications of the ACM is dedicated to the issue of data filtering. People have been working on this technology for along time. It's very importaint in the information age to have all relivant information. > Regarding the claim that one major monitoring hub is code named > "elizabeth" in Boulder Colorado. There is a government standards > agency there, if I am not mistaken, I forget if it is NIST (?). Also, > the National Center for Oceanic Research, which has very tremendous > computing power (e.g. Cray YMP) is there also. In their tours they > show massive archival storage areas, which they say record major > amounts of global atmospheric data (e.g. temperatures, wind currents > > etc.) collected from satellites. These could conceivably be in part > "covers" but the idea is also rather unimaginable. Can anybody report > on agencies in the areas cited? There is the very specific claim of a > carrier in Columbus Ohio. That's National Center for _Atmosphearic_ research (the nearest ocean is 1300mi away), and it's so public there's probably no way it could be used for such a purpose. NIST and NOAA are also very open. However, we do have an FBI office here (I only know because a friend of mine works for a criminal defence lawyer located in the same building... briliant planing, no?). There are numerous warehouses in the east quarter any number of which could house a database like this. brad
>Under an obscure pre-WWII ruling by the agency that is now the FCC... >"No information may be encoded or transmitted over PUBLIC or PRIVATE >forms of telephony or radio with the exception of those agencies >involved in the National Security" a further designation goes on to >say "with the exception of the MORSE system of 'transmittal', any >communication that is not interpretable by the human ear is forbidden >and unlawful." As a liscenced ham (amature radio operator), kb6wct, I can assure you that the FCC allows transmissions other than phone, and morse code. Here are just a few -- rtty, ascii, spread spectrum, fax, sstv, and ntsc video. Hams can SEND all of these over the radio. There are still other information transmission systems in use by comercial interests. However, the FCC does in fact dissallow hams from transmitting in "any code or cypher with intent to obscure the content of the message." This allows all cryptographic authentication systems, but not encryption. j'