Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: No, they are categorically NOT doing that... (Score -1) 164

by daveschroeder (#49622049) Attached to: How the NSA Converts Spoken Words Into Searchable Text

...and your comment represents the absolutely fundamental misunderstanding that pervades this discussion.

The truth no one wants to hear:

The distinction is no longer the technology or the place, but the person(s) using a capability: the target. In a free society based on the rule of law, it is not the technological capability to do a thing, but the law, that is paramount.

Gone are the days where the US targeted foreign communications on distant shores, or cracked codes used only by our enemies. No one would have questioned the legitimacy of the US and its allies breaking the German or Japanese codes or exploiting enemy communications equipment during WWII. The difference today is that US adversaries -- from terrorists to nation-states -- use many of the same systems, services, networks, operating systems, devices, software, hardware, cloud services, encryption standards, and so on, as Americans and much of the rest of the world. They use iPhones, Windows, Dell servers, Android tablets, Cisco routers, Netgear wireless access points, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Gmail, and so on.

US adversaries now often use the very same technologies we use. The fact that Americans or others also use them does not suddenly or magically mean that no element of the US Intelligence Community should ever target them. When a terrorist in Somalia is using Hotmail or an iPhone instead of a walkie-talkie, that cannot mean we pack our bags and go home. That means that, within clear and specific legal authorities and duly authorized statutory missions of the Intelligence Community, we aggressively pursue any and all possible avenues, within the law, that allow us to intercept and exploit the communications of foreign intelligence targets.

If they are using hand couriers, we target them. If they are using walkie-talkies, we target them. If they are using their own custom methods for protecting their communications, we target them. If they are using HF radios, VSATs, satellite phones, or smoke signals, we target them. If they are using Gmail, Windows, OS X, Facebook, iPhone, Android, SSL, web forums running on Amazon Web Services, etc., we target them -- within clear and specific legal frameworks that govern the way our intelligence agencies operate, including with regard to US Persons.

That doesn't mean it's always perfect; that doesn't mean things are not up for debate; that doesn't mean everyone will agree with every possible legal interpretation; that doesn't mean that some may not fundamentally disagree with the US approach to, e.g., counterterrorism. But the intelligence agencies do not make the rules, and while they may inform issues, they do not define national policy or priorities.

Without the authorities granted by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), the United States cannot target non-US Persons who are foreign intelligence targets if their communications enters, traverses, or otherwise touches the United States, a system within the United States, or, arguably, a system or network operated by a US corporation (i.e., a US Person) anywhere in the world. FAA in particular is almost exclusively focused on non-US Persons outside the US, who now exist in the same global web of digital communications as innocent Americans.

Without FAA, the very same Constitutional protections and warrant requirements reserved for US Persons would extend to foreign nations and foreign terrorists simply by using US networks and services â" whether intentionally or not. Without FAA, an individualized warrant would be required to collect on a foreign intelligence target using, say, Facebook, Gmail, or Yahoo!, or even exclusively foreign providers if their communications happens to enter the United States, as 70% of international internet traffic does. If you do not think there is a problem with this, there might be an even greater and more basic misunderstanding about how foreign SIGINT and cyber activities fundamentally must work.

If you believe NSA should not have these capabilities, what you are saying is that you do not believe the United States should be able to target foreign intelligence targets outside the United States who, by coincidence or by design, ever utilize or enter US systems and services. If you believe the solution is an individualized warrant every time the US wishes to target a foreign adversary using Gmail, then you are advocating the protection of foreign adversaries with the very same legal protections reserved for US citizens -- while turning foreign SIGINT, which is not and never has been subject to those restrictions, on its head.

These are the facts and realities of the situation. Any government capability is imperfect, and any government capability can be abused. But the United States is the only nation on earth which has jammed intelligence capabilities into as sophisticated and extensive a legal framework as we have. When the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress, multiple executive agencies under two diametrically opposite Presidential administrations, armies of lawyers within offices of general counsel and and inspectors general, and federal judges on the very court whose only purpose is to protect the rights of Americans under the law and the Constitution in the context of foreign intelligence collection are all in agreement, then you have the judgment of every mechanism of our free civil society.

Or we could just keep laying our intelligence sources, methods, techniques, and capabilities bare to our enemies.

âMany forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947

"The necessity of procuring good Intelligence is apparent and need not be further urged â" all that remains for me to add, is, that you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon Secrecy, Success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, and for want of it, they are generally defeated, however well planned and promising a favourable issue.â â" George Washington, our nation's first spymaster, in a letter to Colonel Elias Dayton, 26 July 1777

Comment: Re:The answer has been clear (Score 1) 390

by jaredmauch (#49518117) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

I see consistently faster times with my IPv6 vs IPv4 with my native service at home, even with just pings. This seems to be the norm with most networks. If you are using a tunnel broker, such as he.net or otherwise you are most likely going a longer path with those artificial midpoints. Also, your browser may be broken as it doesn't implement rfc6555 properly.

Comment: Re:Waiting for the killer app ... (Score 4, Informative) 390

by jaredmauch (#49516067) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

Perhaps you missed world IPv6 day when they both jumped at the same time to enable their front pages? There are a lot of things that don't work right in an IPv6 only world, such as Skype but the list of things that doesn't work is getting shorter. If you take a look at the statistics it's quite encouraging to see a steady growth curve.

https://www.google.com/intl/en...

Comment: Re:The answer has been clear (Score 2) 390

by jaredmauch (#49516057) Attached to: Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled

[citation needed] for your assertion. Been deploying IPv6 at a major ISP/carrier for 13 years now. If you bought the wrong stuff or didn't ask for IPv6, you may be right but the proper gear is out there and doesn't cost any more. I can even get IPv6 over my VPN connection.

The issue is one of mentality and training. Above someone says "turned off IPv6, problem went away". That's certainly one way to say "I blame IPv6". They didn't troubleshoot the problem. Perhaps it's a DNS problem or something else they haven't properly diagnosed. Without actually understanding how the protocols work, one is doomed to failure and blame.

When you look at the major players who have deployed IPv6, including Netflix, Google, Yahoo to name but a few and compare that with the statistics on the cellular side... VZ Wireless sees over 60% IPv6 traffic. With the coming "great mobile demotion" tomorrow, it's more likely those devices if they come over 3GPP/LTE will perhaps visit you via IPv6 than via IPv4 if you properly enable your front door. If you are a CDN customer, it's a button to turn on IPv6. Cloudflare has it on by default, Akamai you have to ask, same for Limelight.

The edge protocols have only really reached maturity in the past 2 years to deliver a connection to the edge or your home. CPE lifetime is somewhere in the 3-7 year range, we are still another generation away from having the home properly IPv6 enabled, but it's more often just going to be there and "just work". There are a lot of IT workers who haven't invested enough to learn about the subtle differences in V6, such as NDP vs ARP, etc and will block all ICMPv6 not understanding they are blocking NDP so can't see a response to their NS. This too will pass much in the same way as those who only knew appletalk or IPX routing.

Comment: Re:Great -not so much (Score 4, Interesting) 106

by jaredmauch (#49436575) Attached to: Bell Labs Fighting To Get More Bandwidth Out of Copper

Not really, Fiber is the same cost to put in the ground and you can get fusion splicers for around $1500 these days. The cost is all in putting the cable into the ground. If you are touching the earth, that's the expensive part. Permits (which understandably people want to leverage Title II to assist with repairs/upgrades/deployment) can actually be 1/3rd of the cost. next 1/3rd is labor and last 1/3rd is the fiber.

There is a cultural split here, many people want things for the cheapest possible amount, or will switch for the next "deal" in 1-2 years because it saves them $5/mo and comes with a gift-card, but they have to take the day off for an installer to come by, costing them more than their savings in lost wages. Some people flat out value their time at $0.

The community of Slashdot may be willing to pay $70/mo for google fiber plus $100/yr for Prime, $96/yr for Netflix, etc. The cost per home to wire for fiber is about $2500, if you think the cell phone subsidy model in the US is an issue, try getting someone to write a check for that. Shared tenant buildings like Apartments are quite complex, including in NYC as the telco can get access to the building riser/copper but would have to install fiber. Who is responsible for the in-building wiring in that case?

AT&T has fiber about 1200 feet from me but the only speeds offered are 768k and 1.5M down. I would be willing to pay for a FTTH install, but there is no way for them to figure out how to do it. Last time I got a quote for a build, it was about $60k to build fiber. Moving easily becomes an option at that point.

It's not farmer john you have to worry about, that long strech of fiber likely already exists, and they can give right of way much easier. It's the Township, County and Road Commission that has got to get paid for permits and labor costs, not the cost of the fiber.

Comment: The ultimate "man made earthquake" (Score 3, Interesting) 166

by daveschroeder (#49418797) Attached to: The Arrival of Man-Made Earthquakes

Russian analyst urges nuclear attack on Yellowstone National Park and San Andreas fault line

A Russian geopolitical analyst says the best way to attack the United States is to detonate nuclear weapons to trigger a supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park or along the San Andreas fault line on California's coast.

The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems based in Moscow, Konstantin Sivkov said in an article for a Russian trade newspaper on Wednesday, VPK News, that Russia needed to increase its military weapons and strategies against the "West" which was "moving to the borders or Russia".

He has a conspiracy theory that NATO - a political and military alliance which counts the US, UK, Canada and many countries in western Europe as members - was amassing strength against Russia and the only way to combat that problem was to attack America's vulnerabilities to ensure a "complete destruction of the enemy".

"Geologists believe that the Yellowstone supervolcano could explode at any moment. There are signs of growing activity there. Therefore it suffices to push the relatively small, for example the impact of the munition megaton class to initiate an eruption. The consequences will be catastrophic for the United States - a country just disappears," he said.

"Another vulnerable area of the United States from the geophysical point of view, is the San Andreas fault - 1300 kilometers between the Pacific and North American plates ... a detonation of a nuclear weapon there can trigger catastrophic events like a coast-scale tsunami which can completely destroy the infrastructure of the United States."

Full story

Comment: And why not? (Score 4, Insightful) 227

Considering that nuclear power is the safest form of power the world has ever known, I'd say it's worthy of recognition for offsetting carbon more than anything else. To borrow a phrase, "It's the energy density, stupid."

There's a reason why China has 30 nuclear plants under construction, while the US just approved its first new plant in 30 years.

Comment: Re:Realistic (Score 2) 374

by jaredmauch (#49129613) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt

The challenge here is the other costs that are unaccounted for. Sure, you see power at 5c/10c per KWH, but all the other parts cost money as well, such as poles. Sure, the pole may be split in cost between the power, phone and cable companies, but that's still an expensive asset. http://www.dailyherald.com/art... provides a view into what this costs to be maintained. If a pole costs $1-3k, how many are you sharing the cost of as part of the rate. This is part of the "ugly profit" people gripe about with some of these shared assets, both in an electric network and the ways the bits reach your screen here.

If I get to a bill of zero due to investing and net-metering, someone else is going to be paying for those grid parts either in higher rates, or I need to pay for some usage of that giant battery network. No free lunch, etc..

Comment: Re:Facts not in evidence (Score 1) 406

by daveschroeder (#49122177) Attached to: NSA Director Wants Legal Right To Snoop On Encrypted Data

Your (and my, and any individual citizen's) personal interpretation of the Constitution is not the measure. It is the interpretation and implementation by our three branches of government. I realize that some reading this believe they have all been compromised, or that they think some particular thing is "obviously unconstitutional" (even though the judicial, legislative, and executive branches say otherwise), but the fact is we have the system of government we have. So how about you consider the alternative: one where you don't assume that everyone working at every/any level of government, e.g., NSA, doesn't have the worst motivations and is actually trying to do their best to honorably, legally, and Constitutionally, protect our nation and its people instead of the opposite. How about that?

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Working...