1 |
Mick <michaelkintzios <at> gmail.com> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Thursday 04 Jun 2015 18:07:04 James wrote: |
5 |
> > Well, the "media" like to project that everything was fine, before Snowden |
6 |
> > did his thing. I, like many with deep roots in communications beyond TCP/IP |
7 |
> > have known better for a long time. I was perusing some published documents |
8 |
> > of an ILEC that wants me to do some work (a mesos cluster no less). Then I |
9 |
> > ran across this document, by accident [1]. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> As I understand it from a cursory look, this document explains how unbundling |
12 |
> can occur so that suppliers can provide internet services to consumers, using |
13 |
> a competitor's infrastructure. If anything, it tries to reverse the |
14 |
> oligopolistic cartel of ISPs that is so prevalent in the US among cable |
15 |
> providers. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> > So now that my privacy of "phone records" has been wrestled from the hands |
18 |
> > of the NSA, and place with the Telco, conglomerates, boy why do I not feel |
19 |
> > safer? Congress has assured me that my personal data is now safe? |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Due to a 40 year dogma of privatisation of public services, all this data was |
22 |
> always provided and managed by Telcos and private enterprises, on behalf of |
23 |
> the NSA. Who did you think Snowden was working for? So the latest |
24 |
provisions |
25 |
> pushed onto you by your government as something <aheam!> safer, can mean only |
26 |
> one thing: same men, different trousers. Carry on, as you were lads! |
27 |
> |
28 |
> > "ICP" or Integrated Communications Provider is the jargon by which all |
29 |
> > attempts to keep our personal data, personal, are completely circumvented. |
30 |
> > Just read the patent, award makes not differnce, as these carrier databases |
31 |
> > have already been compile with numerous net data bases, so our privacy is |
32 |
> > already completely compromised. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> This I think refers to cross charging and management of users accounts to |
35 |
> provide ease of transfer between providers (and therefore facilitate |
36 |
> competition and better end user services/prices). I haven't read it in |
37 |
depth, |
38 |
> but this is what a quick scan of it tells me. |
39 |
|
40 |
SS7 (The north American "switching standard") where the tariffs are still |
41 |
enforced is where the phone "meta-data" comes from regardless of how it is |
42 |
originated. Now, All data from an ISP, Telco |
43 |
web company, social media or anything else can all be moved between "ICPs" |
44 |
for business (sales) purposes now via this document and many others. What's |
45 |
new is the Feds will be paying gargantuan sums of money to the telcos now |
46 |
to keep data they already maintain..... |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> > And folks in other countries, besides the good ole USA, your asses have |
50 |
> > been "owned" for even longer..... |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Have you asked your senator how much $$$ is your government paying the secret |
53 |
> services of other governments to provide information on their own as well as |
54 |
> US citizens? |
55 |
|
56 |
Yes this is the back door that has always existed and all advanced countries |
57 |
use it. The "agencies" just buy the data from offshore sources; |
58 |
thus circumventing domestic restrictions. That was/is a fundamental tenet of |
59 |
"signal intercept". |
60 |
|
61 |
Did you notice that after the fall, of the Berlin wall (nov 1989), the good |
62 |
ole USA needed a new boogey man to justify spending billions and billions to |
63 |
keep us secure? The Internet security business opened in 1990 via public |
64 |
access to the Internet. |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
Soon it will be those evil Chinese. Taxpayers pay; so the politicians |
68 |
and can play..... There has to be a boogey man, to justify spending billions |
69 |
on keeping us safe. |
70 |
|
71 |
|
72 |
> > So I suggest we call have a shot or 2 of Tequila this weekend, get naked, |
73 |
> > and party like you've got nothing left to hide; cause you don't! |
74 |
> |
75 |
> I think that strong encryption with good RNGs still works, if Snowden is |
76 |
to be |
77 |
> believed. But ... I suspect this is only a matter of buying you some more |
78 |
> time. |
79 |
> |
80 |
> > cheers mate! |
81 |
> > James |
82 |
> > [1] http://www.google.com/patents/US20010034627 |
83 |
|
84 |
|
85 |
The Onion with strong encryption does delay the process. But there's |
86 |
too much advanced hardware available if they really want to decipher |
87 |
a particular stream of data. |