So when are we rioting?
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Nick Khamis <sym...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tax payer money...... :) > > On 6/7/13, Mark Seiden <m...@seiden.com> wrote: > > what a piece of crap this article is. > > > > the guy doesn't understand what sniffing can and can't do. obviously he > > doesn't understand peering or routing, and he doesn't understand what > cdns > > are for. > > > > he doesn't understand the EU safe harbor, saying it applies to govt > > entitites, when it's purely about companies hosting data of EU citizens. > > > > he quotes a source who suggests that the intel community might have > > privileged search access to facebook, which i don't believe. > > > > he even says "company-owned equipment" might refer to the NSA, which i > > thought everybody calls the "agency" so to not confuse with the CIA. > > > > and he suggests that these companies might have given up their "master > > decryption keys" (as he terms them) so that USG could decrypt SSL. > > > > and the $20M cost per year, which would only pay for something the size > of a > > portal or a web site, well, that's mysterious. > > > > sheesh. > > > > this is not journalism. > > > > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Also of interest: > >> > >> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/nsa-prism-records-surveillance-questions > >> > >> - ferg > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Michael Hallgren <m.hallg...@free.fr> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Le 07/06/2013 19:10, Warren Bailey a écrit : > >>>> Five days ago anyone who would have talked about the government having > >>>> this capability would have been issued another tin foil hat. We think > we > >>>> know the truth now, but why hasn't echelon been brought up? I'm not > >>>> calling anyone a liar, but isn't not speaking the truth the same > thing? > >>> > >>> > >>> ;-) > >>> > >>> mh > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my Mobile Device. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------- Original message -------- > >>>> From: Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com> > >>>> Date: 06/07/2013 9:34 AM (GMT-08:00) > >>>> To: > >>>> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Matthew Petach > >>>> <mpet...@netflight.com>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Has fingers directly in servers of top Internet content companies, > >>>>>> dates to 2007. Happily, none of the companies listed are transport > >>>>>> networks: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> -- jra > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink > >>>>>> j...@baylink.com > >>>>>> Designer The Things I Think > >>>>>> RFC > >>>>>> 2100 > >>>>>> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 > Land > >>>>>> Rover DII > >>>>>> St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 > 727 > >>>>>> 647 1274 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> I've always just assumed that if it's in electronic form, > >>>>> someone else is either reading it now, has already read > >>>>> it, or will read it as soon as I walk away from the screen. > >>>>> > >>>>> Much less stress in life that way. ^_^ > >>>>> > >>>>> Matt > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> When I posted this yesterday, I was speaking somewhat > >>>> tongue-in-cheek, because we hadn't yet made a formal > >>>> statement to the press. Now that we've made our official > >>>> reply, I can echo it, and note that whatever fluffed up > >>>> powerpoint was passed around to the washington post, > >>>> it does not reflect reality. There are no optical taps in > >>>> our datacenters funneling information out, there are no > >>>> sooper-seekret backdoors in the software that funnel > >>>> information to the government. As our formal reply > >>>> stated: "Yahoo does not provide the government with > >>>> direct access to its servers, systems, or network." > >>>> I believe the other major players supposedly listed > >>>> in the document have released similar statements, > >>>> all indicating a similar lack of super-cheap government > >>>> listening capabilities. > >>>> > >>>> Speaking just for myself, and if you quote me on this > >>>> as speaking on anyone else's behalf, you're a complete > >>>> fool, if the government was able to build infrastructure > >>>> that could listen to all the traffic from a major provider > >>>> for a fraction of what it costs them to handle that traffic > >>>> in the first place, I'd be truly amazed--and I'd probably > >>>> wonder why the company didn't outsource their infrastruture > >>>> to the government, if they can build and run it so much > >>>> more cheaply than the commercial providers. ;P > >>>> 7 companies were listed; if we assume the > >>>> burden was split roughly evenly between them, that's > >>>> 20M/7, about $2.85M per company per year to tap in, > >>>> or about $238,000/month per company listed, to > >>>> supposedly snoop on hundreds of gigs per second > >>>> of data. Two ways to handle it: tap in, and funnel > >>>> copies of all traffic back to distant monitoring posts, > >>>> or have local servers digesting and filtering, just > >>>> extracting the few nuggets they want, and sending > >>>> just those back. > >>>> > >>>> Let's take the first case; doing optical taps, or other > >>>> form of direct traffic mirroring, carrying it untouched > >>>> offsite to process; that's going to mean the ability to > >>>> siphon off hundreds of Gbps per datacenter and carry > >>>> it offsite for $238k/month; let's figure a major player > >>>> has data split across at least 3 datacenters, so about > >>>> $75K/month per datacenter to carry say 300Gbps of > >>>> traffic. It's pretty clearly going to have to be DWDM > >>>> on dark fiber at that traffic volume; most recent > >>>> quotes I've seen for dark fiber put it at $325/mile > >>>> for already-laid-in-ground (new builds are considerably > >>>> more, of course). If we figure the three datacenters > >>>> are split around just the US, on average you're going > >>>> to need to run about 1500 miles to reach their central > >>>> listening post; that's $49K/month just to carry the > >>>> bitstream, which leaves you just about $25K/month > >>>> to run the servers to digest that data; at 5c/kwhr, a > >>>> typical server pulling 300 watts is gonna cost you $11/month > >>>> to run; let's assume each server can process 2Gbps of > >>>> traffic, constantly; 150 servers for the stream of 300Gbps > >>>> means we're down to $22K for the rest of our support > >>>> costs; figure two sysadmins getting paid $10k/month > >>>> to run the servers (120k annual salary), and you've got > >>>> just $2k for G&A overhead. > >>>> > >>>> That's a heck of an efficient operation they'd have to be > >>>> running to listen in on all the traffic for the supposed > >>>> budget number claimed. > >>>> > >>>> I'm late for work; I'll follow up with a runthrough of the > >>>> other model, doing on-site digestion and processing > >>>> later, but I think you can see the point--it's not realistic > >>>> to think they can handle the volumes of data being > >>>> claimed at the price numbers listed. If they could, > >>>> the major providers would already be doing it for > >>>> much cheaper than they are today. I mean, the > >>>> Utah datacenter they're building is costing them > >>>> $2B to build; does anyone really think if they're > >>>> overpaying that much for datacenter space, they > >>>> could really snoop on provider traffic for only > >>>> $238K/month? > >>>> > >>>> More later--and remember, this is purely my own > >>>> rampant speculation, I'm not speaking for anyone, > >>>> on behalf of anyone, or even remotely authorized > >>>> or acknowledged by any entity on this rambling, > >>>> so please don't go quoting this anywhere else, > >>>> it'll make you look foolish, and probably get me > >>>> in trouble anyhow. :( > >>>> > >>>> Matt > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > >> fergdawgster(at)gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > >