Say again?

On Tue, 25 May 1993 14:56:48 -0400,
 andrew m. boardman <uunet!cs.columbia.edu!amb> wrote -
 
> Food for thought: that, at least as of recently, the NSA bought
> weekly dumps of all usenet articles on tape.  I highly doubt they
> were for their reading pleasure...
 
 Is this hearsay, innuendo or fact? If fact, what can you site as
 reference to support your statement? If you know this to be fact,
 please cite your references and provide as much detail as possible.
 
 Cheers.
 

Paul Ferguson               |  The future is now.
Network Integrator          |  History will tell the tale;
Centreville, Virginia USA   |  We must endure and struggle
fergp@sytex.com             |  to shape it.
 
          Stop the Wiretap (Clipper/Capstone) Chip.

>>  Is this hearsay, innuendo or fact? If fact, what can you site as
>>  reference to support your statement? If you know this to be fact,
>>  please cite your references and provide as much detail as possible.

Rick Adams of UUNET confirmed on the com-priv list that his
organization had been selling the FBI a usenet feed on tape.  I could
find the exact reference if you want.  I don't know for sure that the
NSA has a feed, or from whom, but it wouldn't surprise me.

However, the obvious next point is, so what?  It's a public system.
Any idiot can pay $20/month and get a public access account.  If you
say something in a news post which you wouldn't want the FBI or NSA or
whoever to see, you're the person who has done something stupid.

Tapping a news feed isn't like tapping a phone line.  It's more like
turning on the television.

		Marc

Is this hearsay, innuendo or fact? If fact, what can you site as
    reference to support your statement? If you know this to be fact,
    please cite your references and provide as much detail as possible.

This was based on a verbal conversation at Interop with someone from
uunet, from whom the tapes are purchased.  I or they could be
mis[led|informed|remembering], but if you really care, ask uunet.

andrew

>    Is this hearsay, innuendo or fact? If fact, what can you site as
>    reference to support your statement? If you know this to be fact,
>    please cite your references and provide as much detail as possible.
>
>This was based on a verbal conversation at Interop with someone from
>uunet, from whom the tapes are purchased.  I or they could be
>mis[led|informed|remembering], but if you really care, ask uunet.
>
>andrew

Actually, the most alarming revelation here could be that someone at uunet
is going around casually disclosing information about their customers.
Most communications companies, especially those that seek to be regarded
as "common carriers", make quite clear to their employees that customer data
are among their most proprietary and that revealing any of it is grounds for
lightning-speed dismissal.  (Obviously, they reveal data that they SELL about
their customers, and will disclose anything on a court order, but that's not
what we're talking about here).

-matt (who has signed his share of non-disclosure agreements with big, bad
communications companies)

>This was based on a verbal conversation at Interop with someone from
   >uunet, from whom the tapes are purchased.  I or they could be
   >mis[led|informed|remembering], but if you really care, ask uunet.

Having just spoken to someone who contracts at the NSA (and no, this name
I will not post), he does not believe they get such a beast, although, as
many people have pointed out, the FBI did.  That, then, would be the
origin of that, along with some TLA confusion.

   Actually, the most alarming revelation here could be that someone at uunet
   is going around casually disclosing information about their customers.

A lot of people perceive the government as having neither a right nor a
need to privacy.  Certainly there are also quite a few who label
themselves "privacy advocates" whose standards do a 180 when the privacy
involved is that of the likes of Mykotronx...

andrew