PRISM - Is Not What You Think (Illustrated)

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

To answer your question - no, they don't have to use secret spy satellites for this - they've got back channels into all the commercial satellites as well as the major downlink receivers like COMSAT.

ganjoa

I will be honest with you... my belief is that every digital connection can and will be comprised if you are targeted. I see them using the mesh network of utility meters to cover the American people who ....... these smart-meter networks are quite expansive......

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
your half right NSA set up the "Prism" long before 9/11 along with Ma Bell and AT&T, looking for drug king pins of the 80's, back then it was run by the DEA and FBI. When 9/11 to place NSA just took over and finished the LA CA, and the east coast tap most of if not all e communications come in on the west coat why ATT snoop and seek routing station soon to be replaced by the UTAH snoop and seek routing station in Bluffdale NSA Bluffdale UT nsa.gov1.info... you see I know more about this than you think or They think I do.
For reasons of my own, I will not go in to the details, Novas Spy Factory video.pbs.org... does a good job of telling one how it works and no need of warrant , why National Security and FISA play a part er roll in this TAP and SEEK for that is what it er They do.

reply to post by HanzHenry

Thats is PURE MULARKEY! takes them weeks.. pfft
who are you trying to fool? That "encryption" is so pathetically easily "cracked" by the Govt.
I was a Telecom Specialist and suffered thru massive amounts of schooling. And held a TS.

Concur. People often forget the most basic thing that if its designed by Humans, it always has a backup/backdoor built into/outside the technology. The rest of the hype by MSM is a propoganda.

Originally posted by GargIndiaWe believe tools like Prism are avoidable shortcuts that do more harm than good.

And do you think your government isn't monitoring signals/communications of all sorts? They probably have their own version as they generally do not like western tool suites(license too expensive) or design/functionality generally. Moreoever they do have enough software professionals to design their own at much cheapter cost from scatch though learn as you go and enhance as needed. How do you think they keep tab on India's neighbors in all four directions? (China, Pakistan, Bangladesh/Burma/Nepal, Sri Lanka) and all the terrorist/strategic threats ?

May 2011 marked the visit of US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet
Napolitano to initiate the US-India Homeland Security Dialogue. Home
Minister P. Chidambaram represented the Indian side and the Dialogue.

348 Jindal Journal of International Affairs / Vol. 1
paved the way for a landmark agreement on cyber-security, in times of its
increasing relevance in fighting the war against terror, and CII protection.17
The corresponding computer emergency response teams from both
the countries, US-CERT and CERT-In, would be the primary point of
contacts in this bilateral knowledge-sharing exercise. Secretary Napolitano
proposed
“…to choke off the life line of some of these terrorist organizations,
to open a dialogue that includes cyber security which is necessary to
protect the networks that are critical infrastructure”.
Not only does it symbolise the start of a new era in fostering a global
cyber-security regime but may also prove monumental in dismantling
international cyber-crime syndicates which also harbour terrorists, drug
smugglers, human traffickers and espionage rings.

Generally these meetings are staged after the joint actions have taken place
and/or in the process of implementing the iniatives
LINK
LINK

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Then why even bother getting a warrant....

Because they need that to go the provider so they can decrypt the SSL data. The data in emails they get now for free without asking in email form is encrypted if I understand this thread correctly.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Most fascinating. Thanks for supplying this easy to understand information. I have a question however. Do you know how the NSA was allowed to install their secret "rooms" where a portion of the data is syphoned into. Why did, google, for example, allow NSA to attach a box to their system and agree to keep quiet about it?

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Then why even bother getting a warrant....

You must have missed the explanation for the warrant...

The NSA can't decrypt all of the secure / SSL traffic that they have. They can see the bits that are unencrypted. They inspect that traffic for "signs" of behavior that should be flagged. However, if all of your email is sent over SSL, it could take them days, weeks even months to decrypt all of your email. Same with chats or instant messages. The warrants are because they are not allowed to have the super duper secret encryption key that Google, or Facebook, or whoever uses, to encrypt their traffic, so they issue the warrant to bypass that problem and just get the decrypted data from the company.

I hope that makes sense.

~Namaste

So essentially this is like me getting a copy of all your emails and having them in hand but not opening them up until i legally need to or if i just decided to disregard the law or the constitution for various bull crap reasons.

Warrants, Smarrants!! Are you all that deaf and not heard what's been happening. The NSA or any other US agency has never spied on their citizens so there is no need for ANY warrants. The main inteligence gathering network is technologically US based but, with a big but, it's also based in the UK. This also gives the UK spy network deniability concerning warrants to spy on UK citizens. The agreement is UK GCHQ and other agencies use US systems to spy on US citizens. They find something of interest for the US agencies they give them the data ie. no US agency involvement so no accountability. The same goes for UK citizens, US agencies spy on UK citizens. They find something useful they give the information freely to UK agencies. No warrants ever needed as truthfully they can say they are not spying on their own citizens. Plausable deniability. They can truthfully answer that the information came to them from a foreign power.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Where are you getting that they need a warrant to get at encrypted traffic only? They need a warrant to make the snooping legal so it's actionable in a court. But i think i understand what your saying, (it really depends on the type of traffic though) if the FBI wants to read your emails then they can simply go to your Mail host and get whatever they have on the server and ongoing emails copied, Facebook, Google for your searches and traffic patterns, Verisign for cell records.

But it sounded like your saying they (US Intelligence) are sniffing and storing all your data and THEN, if the unencrypted data flags something, they go back and get a warrant and then can read all your old encrypted packets. That is a whole different ball game and i don't think that's what happens. Not in my experience.

Also, read what Snowden said, he never talked about Prism like your talking about. He was talking about collecting data from Endpoints i.e. Cell phone, email, application providers. Where your data is stored. He never talked about mass culling of data from tier one providers. If he did i didn't see that.

What your talking about is when it was released that the US was snooping on pipes that are on the perimeter of the US data grid after 911 and I'm sure that is going on. Those are not just Internet traffic, they are also phone calls....

This whole thing is very complicated. If you don't understand the technology its easy to fool ignorant people. It is NOTfair to say that the US Government is looking at all Mr and Mrs Joe Blows US citizens packets and looking for key words. That is not true. Nothing points to that.

V

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard

most systems use a combination of public-key and symmetric key encryption. When two computers initiate a secure session, one computer creates a symmetric key and sends it to the other computer using public-key encryption. The symmetric key is discarded once the conversation completes, so tell us again how the message is decrypted?

Your right, but what I think he was trying to say (and I could be wrong) is that they can't read the encrypted traffic so it's simpler to go to Facebook and get them to show you the data raw. The endpoints where the data is stored is why they need a warrant. But I agree his explanation how the encryption fits in wasn't all that good. Sounded good to many it appears.


V

Quantum computers and AI (w/ specialized IQ at 510) make encryption a moot point

I'm a bit short on time, but let me straighten a few things out...

1) Snowden only knows what he saw, he doesn't know the entire inner operations of the Government.
2) What I'm telling you comes from testimony in front of Congress, combined with information revealed by Snowden and additional personal experience dealing with secured data and warrants requesting access to it.
3) If you don't believe that they siphon off all of the traffic, you don't understand the details of the OP.

I was very clear about how fiber is split. It is not hard or costly to do. Mark Klein, who testified in front of Congress, also showed direct evidence that included network and wiring diagrams that illustrate how the equipment was built. I provided you with the hardware and software (Narus) that is used to do the deep packet inspection, something a lot of Application Management Providers (software) do for sniffing patterns in data. (Dell and Quest have similar software and hardware, called network taps) I'm not sure why you all still doubt what's happening.

Warrants are required for due process, but they only need them for procedural process to prevent evidence from being thrown out or allowing you to get off the hook on technicalities for lack of a warrant. They already have what they need to investigate you, without having obtained permission from someone to get that information. It is AFTER they have some bit of information, that they go to a PRIVATE hearing in the FISA court, tell a Federal judge that they have "probable cause", based on what is considered "intercepted public traffic" to the court, and the judge grants a warrant to obtain more information. If there is even a HINT of probability that you are doing something wrong, that's all it takes to convince the judge. They can create the "hint" artificially by taking real things you say or type, and putting them into the right context. It's like a criminal in a confession statement, he laughs while saying "yea, I killed him, right..." - and that is exactly what shows up on paper, so the person reading it does not know they were joking based only on the words, it isn't a damn screenplay.

I get bashed for revealing details about things that I probably shouldn't, only for the sake of helping others. I don't know everything, and I don't have every single detail, but I know enough to put a dent in some nefarious plans and do what's right, and that's the team I play for.

Mark Klein Testimony for Interested Parties

~Namaste

reply to post by HanzHenry


Even Snowden says that strong encryption is still your best defense. Now this may exclude weaker versions of SSL but those versions are used less and less.

BTW a TS clearance is like the easist to get. The secrets you talk about arent exposed to anyone at that level (if they existed at all)

Not saying that the Govt cant decrypt, just that they dont have the ability to decrypt everything that goes across the wire. I fully expect that if they filter you out, taking the tme and computing power to un-encrypt your data becomes more efficient.

reply to post by Variable


Facebook, twitter and the like are a gold mine for the spooks in Greenbelt and Langley.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


OK, you got me on all the technical stuff but I am tracking at the basement level.

I got it that the volume of traffic is too large to sift through bit by bit. However, if it is one thing our government has proven is that it is untrustworthy to leave watching the hen house (see IRS shenanigans). What is to stop some rouge elements to decide to target specific individuals under the auspices of a warrant from a FISA court with a 99.999% approval average?

Very interesting on who makes this though.

ok

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

Even Snowden says that strong encryption is still your best defense. Now this may exclude weaker versions of SSL but those versions are used less and less.

BTW a TS clearance is like the easist to get. The secrets you talk about arent exposed to anyone at that level (if they existed at all)

Not saying that the Govt cant decrypt, just that they dont have the ability to decrypt everything that goes across the wire. I fully expect that if they filter you out, taking the tme and computing power to un-encrypt your data becomes more efficient.

edit on 17-6-2013 by Mike.Ockizard because: (no reason given)

you are .....tc violation.
incredibly trollish and ....trollish..


Yeah, a Top Secret clearance is SOOOOO easies to get, heck, there is a counter at Walmart!..

that is telling of what you are....

you are CLUELESS.. and as the old sayings go "just give a fool time, and/or let them speak"..

people like you... ah man..

Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to achieve that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.”

Just want everyone to contemplate this quote from Edward Snowden. My brain hurts. Thanks OP, great post and follow up..

link to an interesting article

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Well you ignored the query about Encryption but I understand.

3) If you don't believe that they siphon off all of the traffic, you don't understand the details of the OP.

I read the wired article. It seems they intercept and store emails and phone calls predominately. I doubt they are looking at your streaming videos... but I am a literal guy. So when you say ALL traffic, i think you mean ALL traffic and that is just crazy talk. So they pick ports that may have interesting traffic and they shunt a copy of that traffic to a sniffer with some rules baked into the IC chips. Out pops more interesting traffic. I doubt a human is even involved here, another piece of software no doubt. At some point the software starts tracking the interesting traffics IP, starts pulling more traffic, watches the end points. Records it all to storage. Neat stuff really. Not that surprising if you know about how the stuff works.

Here is a relevant snippet from a great article.

Considering that, according to Cisco, the total world Internet traffic for 2012 was 1.1 exabytes per day is physically impossible, let alone practical, for the NSA to capture and retain even a fraction of the world's Internet traffic on a daily basis.

Link to arstechnica article

The Wired articles are interesting, one says they had a breakthrough cracking encryption but then goes on to say its still really hard. Here is an interesting quote:

According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.”

Wired article

They are brute forcing encryption though, no back doors, they need reams of data to compare and look for clues. That's what Bluffdale is going to help with.

That, he notes, is where the value of Bluffdale, and its mountains of long-stored data, will come in. What can’t be broken today may be broken tomorrow.

Very interesting reading, even for me. I learned a few things. I think several of your technical points are misleading or wrong, but I applaud your effort wholeheartedly. Writing about technical stuff so that non-technical people can understand, is always a balancing act. How far down that rabbit hole do you go. I'm writing for people who understand what I am talking about and take the time to read the articles and grasp them.

V

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

He is partially correct. Any traffic that is not explicitly encrypted is fair game and can be inspected or listened in on in a real-time fashion. So they do not need warrants for that. But let's say the only non-secure data you send over the Internet is text messages from your phone? (not encrypted) They can listen to those, and if one of those messages has the right words in it, it will get "flagged". Next, they start focusing on all of your Internet traffic and find that you are doing all email and everything else with SSL encrypted traffic. They can't just decrypt it, but sometimes they can, it depends on the level of encryption. But in most cases, it will take them too long, so they just get the warrant and ask the company that you're using for your email to decrypt it for them and provide them the unencrypted data.

~Namaste

About the encryption, bear with me - not even close to my field: I seem to recall - in the 90s sometime - a huge flap over PGP or Pretty Good Protection or some such. The flap was that the encryption was so good the government couldn't break it and was, well, pissed because they didn't have a Master Code so to speak. My memory is that the case with encrytion schemes up to that point had provided the government with such a Master Key. Does this ring any bells.

I get the 'no access' to propietary servers - just a split of data stream. Check. But they still are in possession of the entire data stream - not only the government but private contractors with allegence to their company not the constitution - I digress.....