Office 365..? how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Jul 16 22:25:09 UTC 2013
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Barry Shein
> What I find particularly troubling is this image of the govt paying
> for these surveillances. The price seemed to be from around $325 for
> an install plus $10 to $750 install and $500/mo.
> Now, let's not drop right into the easy and trite "don't they deserve
> to be reimbursed" right off. Sure, they/we do.
> But was this reimbursement, or profitable?
IMHO surveillance is not a profit center. Most don't get enough
requests for critical mass and the efficiency to allow for that. The costs
referenced in the article are not entirely unreasonable either if you think
about the process from service to execution, end/end.
The fact that there are associated fees at all is a positive in terms of a
deterrent to "some" abuses and act as one level of accountability. Expenses
require justification even in the government. The actual cost for the
government to operate a surveillance end to end and depending upon where in
the ladder it is can be significant, to the tune of tens of thousands of
dollars a week. That usually translates into what matters e.g. surveillance
of parking offenders vs. terrorists.
>From the capex perspective, it can be high and complex for most based on
the lack of significant volume. That's where the surveillance managed
services come into play, to help to cut the expense.
Shaping the expense picture:
> The troubling image that goes like this:
> ISP VP #1: Any revenue ideas?
[ clip ]
> Accurate? Plausible? Nonsense?
I'd go with the latter. You'd need volume and that kind critical mass, at
least last I knew, was limited.
Here's the last askCALEA congressional report(s) I can find that contain
some numbers around that:
[ Anyone know if there is anything later or newer? This transparency is
I'm not quitting my online collaboration tools just yet.
YMMV, and Best,
[ clip ]
More information about the NANOG