PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project

Fri Jun 7 13:50:30 UTC 2013

On 06/07/13 02:34 -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
>The "oh well, it happens, who cares, guess you need PGP" comments on
>this thread are idiotic. Some of you would benefit from reading the text
>of the 4th Amendment:
>
>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
>to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

OpenPGP and other end-to-end protocols protect against all nefarious
actors, including state entities. I'll admit my first reaction yesterday
after hearing this news was - so what? Network security by its nature
presumes that an insecure channel is going to be attacked and compromised.
The 4th Amendment is a layer-8 solution to a problem that is better solved
lower in the stack.

>The Washington Post mentioned some "safeguards"... but those were
>pathetic. Why? They seemed to be similar to the following analogy:
>"we'll keep that video camera in your home, recording your every move,
>and we promise we'll close our eyes when reviewing the tape whenever it
>shows you naked". THAT is essentially what they're saying. The access
>described by both the Washington Post and The Guardian is essentially
>unfettered/unmetered/unmonitored.
>
>Just as a doctors take the "hippocratic oath" to maintain decent
>standards which are to the benefit of modern civilization... shouldn't
>IT/Networking/Internet professionals (NANOG readers!!!) have standards
>that, hopefully, distinguishes us from... say... the State-run ISP of
>North Korea.
>
>And if these allegations are true... then...
>
>I have a difficult time believing that there was no "quid pro quo"
>involved. Especially since such companies risk a backlash and huge loss
>of customers if/when this gets out. So I don't think they'd do this
>without some kind of return in favor. Did they get special tax
>treatment? Tarp money of any kind (maybe to a parent company)? Easing of
>regulation enforcement?

I assume these taps were put in place under the auspices of (by order of)
homeland security or some such. If there were some financial incentive
involved, I'd be surprise.

-- 
Dan White