Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
From: Rohit Patnaik <quanticle () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:07:17 -0600
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists () tx rr com>wrote:
--On Friday, November 06, 2009 10:46:39 -0600 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.eduwrote:On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 CST, Paul Schmehl said:Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. Youneedonly look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant press at face value, did you?Hey Paul: Thanks for this enlightening point. I've just realized that Mt Everest doesn't exist either, and we've all been taking the word of complete strangers quoted by a compliant National Geographic. All those pics are 'shopped, you can tell by the pixels. C'Mon Paul, quit being a total intentionally blind asshole. Youpresumablyknow how things like BGP and packet forwarding work, and there's nicemapsof most of the sub-ocean fiberoptic cables. Using a minute's *thought*wouldshow that if the NSA wanted to do *any* surveillance in a reasonably efficient manner, they *would* have to create surveillance facilities at the major peering points and exchanges. You know how traceroute works. The locations of all the trans-oceanic fiber cables are *very* well documented (they have to be, it sucks if you lose your cable because a trawler didn't know it was there). From that, it's pretty easy to figure out where you want to put your intercept facilities. So you're stuck with one of two choices: 1) Believe that the NSA in fact didn't do any hoovering of transmissionseventhough they've come out and said they did. 2) Admit that they would indeed need a room right near the ATT PoP in SF right where the whistleblower said it was.And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection....The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath ofofficeare honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in between.You appear to be similarly blinded to the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, the people in Congress had been... *gasp* lied to and theprogrammisrepresented. Because those fine upstanding guys at the intelligence and defense agencies would *never* do a thing like that, just like they were all telling the truth back in 1969 and everything that DanielEllsbergsaid was a lie. Oh, and they didn't actually illegally wiretap Ellserg during his trial,sothere's no reason the judge should have dismissed all the charges. Which is a more sensible approach - to question and worry about the governments actual intentions *this* time (even though they may beinnocent*this* time) because they've done similar major-scale shit multiple timesinyour lifetime, or to blindly accept what they say this time, even though they've pulled similar shit multiple times in your memory? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".The root claim is that the NSA was/is conducting illegal, warrantless surveillance on American citizens. That claim has never been substantiated, and that is precisely my point. If you know anything about internet routing (and I know you do), then you understand that to capture the traffic of terrorists you would have to be at a peering location where traffic is aggregated. As I stated in an earlier response, it's akin to the bogus concern that many people express about system admins. Gee, they can see everything I've got. Which is true, but beside the point. The real question is, do they want to and are there safeguards against abuse. I'm pretty certain the NSA has their hands full just trying to keep up with and track real threats. I seriously doubt they give a shit about a phone conversation you have with your girlfriend where you discuss your sex life. Now, if you are talking to jihadist radicals, then you shouldn't be surprised if the NSA takes an interest. But snooping on ordinary Americans' every day conversations? Please! Do you seriously think they have the time, much less the interest? -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
You say that claims about the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps against US citizens are unsubstantiated. That is totally and blatantly false ( http://is.gd/4PcWV). The linked article clearly states, "Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation." And, in case you don't believe the other article, here (http://is.gd/4Pd1C) is a Congressional Research Service article that goes into more detail about the legal rationale behind the warrantless wiretapping program. As the two links above show, the warrantless wiretapping program is real, and was at least active throughout the term of the Bush administration. Whether it is currently active is a matter that can be debated, but the fact such a program existed and did spy on American citizens is well substantiated. As your own signature states, "It is as useless to argue with those who have forsaken reason as it is to give medicine to the dead." Part of using reason is acknowledging when there is substantiated evidence for the opposing point of view. --Rohit Patnaik
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street, (continued)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Ivan . (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Gary E. Miller (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Chris (Nov 05)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 05)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Ivan . (Nov 05)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Gary E. Miller (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Rohit Patnaik (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Rohit Patnaik (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Rohit Patnaik (Nov 07)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 07)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 07)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 07)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 05)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 06)