Could everyone in the united States really be under virtual surveillance?

dmancornell · Dec 5, 2012

Morpheus said:
Oh, and encryption still has headers in the packets. They still will be able to break it down. It just takes time, lots of time.

You're talking about wifi? I meant straight up RSA. Widespread encryption of data will make warehousing of data unfeasible due to the lack of real-time processing and sorting.

Either way 99% of people don't care about this, just like 99% of people are ok with the government stealing and murdering.

drew · Dec 5, 2012

Morpheus said:
I will agree, encrypting your personal correspondence is a great idea. Of course, if you are right and they have the level of infrastructure you think they do then encryption is just a time issue. Their level of computer power would hard crack it fairly easily. Well, unless you are using 2048-bit or something.

The algorithm and the key size both play a part in how difficult it is for a computer to crack encryption. Luckily, a key size arms race favors those encrypting information. Much less resources involved to encrypt data. Of course, more people and data is better.

dmancornell said:
The encryption won't stop them. It'll only slow them down. Of course, if *all* correspondence was encrypted then all their sorting and filtering algorithms would be DOA.

If people encrypted every bit, our government's ability to monitor us would be severely impeded.

Setting up a VPN server in a country with more stringent privacy laws is one step to start avoiding monitoring. It will make it so every bit you transmit is encrypted until it reaches that server.

DieselScout · Dec 5, 2012

Redcap said:

Is your birthday June 16, 1981 and do you live in Centrailia? Initials A.M. ?

I kinda wondered if you were behind 7 proxies and how tight you were with your details.

and I was board.

ATCclears · Dec 5, 2012

Morpheus, years ago an AT&T tech discovered an odd room and "tap" in one of their key network hubs in the Bay area. Yup, it was the NSA and no they didn't want to talk about it. This was reported in the media.

I've been in tech for a long time, and I fully believe that the NSA has the capability to capture the data and eventually process it (throw away the stuff not of interest).

Peter

deen_ad · Dec 5, 2012

DieselScout said:
Is your birthday June 16, 1981 and do you live in Centrailia? Initials A.M. ?

I kinda wondered if you were behind 7 proxies and how tight you were with your details. and I was board.

Try "bored" instead. :s0013:

Redcap · Dec 5, 2012

DieselScout said:
Is your birthday June 16, 1981 and do you live in Centrailia? Initials A.M. ?

I kinda wondered if you were behind 7 proxies and how tight you were with your details. and I was board.

Nope, nope and nope.

DieselScout · Dec 5, 2012

Redcap said:
Nope, nope and nope.

LOL, okay. Three strikes and I am out.

Morpheus · Dec 6, 2012

ATCclears said:
Morpheus, years ago an AT&T tech discovered an odd room and "tap" in one of their key network hubs in the Bay area. Yup, it was the NSA and no they didn't want to talk about it. This was reported in the media.

I've been in tech for a long time, and I fully believe that the NSA has the capability to capture the data and eventually process it (throw away the stuff not of interest).

Peter

And actually, yes they did talk about it. Well several people talked about it. I even stated in at least one of the posts in this discussion that I totally see the NSA (or whoever) having taps in places. What I strongly disagree with is their ability to suck up all of the email traffic, let alone all of the internet traffic. It is one thing to have one or two taps in various buildings. It is another to say they suck down everything. It is a issue of scaling. Even with automation keeping the systems going and gobbling down all of the data would cause serious feasibility issues. Furthermore, my examples were just US based traffic. Not the massive amount coming into the US from other points of origin.

The problem doesn't scale.