[Tfug] The NET

[Christopher Robbins]

On 9/30/06, Stephen Hooper <stephen.hooper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can the government target a specific machine, and subvert its software
> to its own purposes?  Undoubtedly.  I also assume they do it fairly
> regularly.
>
> Can the government target all machines, and use them to  spy on their
> owners?  I would say no.
>
> Imagine secretly installing software, that will monitor a machine.
> Further, imagine transmitting information from that machine to a
> central location undiscovered by anyone (could you really do that over
> the internet?).
>
> Now imagine how much trouble you are going to.
>
> Then imagine that if you were tasked, and given an "infinite" budget
> how you would go about fulfilling either of the first two requirements
> on at least 200 million people.


Why the hell would you even need to monitor machine by machine when the
backbones will give you access to the routers?

>From Wikipedia, on the NSA Call Database article -

"On May 22, 2006, it was revealed by investigative reporter Seymour
Hersh<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh>and Wired
magazine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired_%28magazine%29> that the
program involved the NSA setting up
splitters<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_splitter>to the routing
cores of many telecoms companies and to major Internet
traffic hubs. These provided a direct
connection<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_noir>to the NSA
headquarters for most
U.S. telecoms communications and all Internet traffic. The NSA used them to
eavesdrop and order police investigations of tens of thousands of ordinary
Americans without judicial warrants.

According to a security consultant who worked on the program, "What the
companies are doing is worse than turning over records... They're providing
total access to all the data", and a former senior intelligence official
said, "This is not about getting a cardboard box of monthly phone bills in
alphabetical order... The N.S.A. is getting real-time actionable
intelligence." "

The government has lots of very smart people working for it, but I am
> in doubt that they would be more imaginative than anyone else given
> the same problem.
>
> What I come up with is that you would need to be able to perfectly
> subvert all computers (undetectably), and you would also need to
> develop some means of communicating the information you are collecting
> in a way that no one has yet detected.
>
> Your scenario would also seem to imply a need to do all that in the
> space of time that the evil Bushites have come to power.



Well, they've had 6 years now....

Remember, the government doesn't need everyone's bank account number.
> They just need the force to be able to close down the banks.   The
> government doesn't need to know if you are
> jewish/polish/roma/marxist/intellectual/liberal/pornographer/muslim/armenian/falun
>
> gong, they just need the might, and the intention to make it
> impossible to live a normal life if you are any of those things.
>
> Undoubtedly, pieces of our government have the power to do those things.
>
> Why then would you then think that their is some grand conspiracy to
> do something in the hardest possible way?  Why not choose to believe
> in Occam's razor, and assume that the intended consequences of any
> such conspiracy  would be to put in place in a much more direct, and
> efficient manner?
>
> You may call that double-think, but seriously,  that seems to me to be
> a misunderstanding of the term in the way Orwell used it, and also
> quite a lazy in thought.
>
> In my belief there seems nothing magical, or revisionist to me; but,
> quite to the contrary, seems the least magical, and most tragic of
> human affairs.  Unfortunately, it also is a very common one.
>
> If you think the conspiracy would have some other result, please let
> me know.  But as far as I can tell, the only two things spying on
> someones computer are sure to tell you are: financial information, or
> philosophical/behavioural information.  What other possible uses could
> a government have for these gleanings?
>
>
>
Eh - good point.  There's not a whole lot you can garner from solely web
browsing.   However,  if you add it all up (credit/debit card transactions,
phone recrods, web browsing and the rest), you can get a pretty accurate
picture of a person, IMHO.  What good that does the government remains to be
seen...

(I started this reply last night, and I just wrapped it up as I woke up.  I
take some responsibility if it's totally senseless :) )

-Chris

-- 
Chris Robbins
Dept. of English Technical Support
http://www.homerengineeringcorp.net