

NSA Interception Infographic - Atlas
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/infographic-nsa-unchained

======
chrishenn
The infographic is kinda weak on information, and it doesn't do much to make
those numbers any more understandable (what's 138 million books?)

The subject, however, isn't looked at enough in America. I remember being
shocked the first time I read about what the NSA does in this New Yorker
piece:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all)

I highly recommend reading it if you're at all interested in this. Fantastic
reporting.

~~~
showerst
That article was awesome, thanks.

It's worth adding that all charges against Drake were eventually dropped.

------
mikehuffman
It is pretty amazing that nearly all of the western first world nations agree
on one thing...they are pretty ok with KGB style spying or monitoring of their
citizens. It doesn't seem to matter if they are on-the-fence-socialists,
outright socialists, or dyed-in-the-wool capitalists.

~~~
DanBC
And that they cooperate to avoid legal difficulties of spying on your own
citizens.

ECHELON was a group of 5 nations. The US couldn't spy on Americans, so the US
would give a list of names to the other four nations who would do the spying
on those people.

The industrial espionage that happened because of ECHELON is amazing too.

------
dhx
Black Hat USA 2009: Realistic probabilities in modern signals intelligence[1]
attempts to provide a more realistic prediction of what _could_ be possible.
The paper is structured in a similar way to how Physics and Technology for
Future Presidents[2] arrives at the physical limits of remote sensing
satellites.

comScore qSearch reports that US Internet search traffic to the top 5 search
engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask, AOL) is on the order of 20 billion per
month or 7,600 searches per second averaged across the day[3].

You'd only need a few cheap off-the-shelf servers to process and store all of
that information for eternity. See [4] for example performance figures for
inserting data to a PostgreSQL database on a single server (not even using
fancy sharding techniques). The C10K problem[5] is also worth noting in this
context.

The reason I use search traffic as an example is that it is very high value --
it doesn't just capture what people _are_ reading or doing, it captures what
they're _seeking_ to read and do (motivations, desires). It's also a very
compact data stream and requires little or no processing and analysis. DNS
query traffic, registers of source and destination phone numbers, etc also
provide cheap, valuable data.

Whether or not the NSA is looking at this kind of data is of little concern
when compared to what the commercial world could use this data for. The NSA
has a strong incentive not to use their power too widely or they will tend to
lose any advantage gained. The commercial world has a similar incentive to act
with restraint -- they want to avoid being regulated by new privacy laws. The
ACLU's stance fails to make consideration towards these incentives for
restraint.

[1] [http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-
usa-09/TOPLETZ/BHUS...](http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-
usa-09/TOPLETZ/BHUSA09-Topletz-GlobalSpying-PAPER.pdf)

[2]
[http://books.google.com/books/about/Physics_and_Technology_f...](http://books.google.com/books/about/Physics_and_Technology_for_Future_Presid.html?id=jMWCDsJesbcC)

[3] [http://www.dailydisruption.com/2012/02/google-still-king-
com...](http://www.dailydisruption.com/2012/02/google-still-king-comscore-
releases-january-2012-u-s-search-engine-rankings/)

[4] [http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-
admin/2011-07/msg00107....](http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-
admin/2011-07/msg00107.php)

[5] <http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html>

~~~
rdtsc
> Whether or not the NSA is looking at this kind of data is of little concern
> when compared to what the commercial world could use this data for.

And don't most privacy laws protect citizens against spying by the government,
but not against spying by the 3rd parties (companies, other citizens). So
isn't there an obvious loophole -- the govt just relies on commercial
companies to provide it all the captured information. They wouldn't even need
special "patriot act" laws for that. Isn't that what ChoicePoint is doing?

------
tlb
1.7 billion per day is a fraction of US texts and phone calls. Rough numbers I
can find are:

    
    
      * 5B texts / day
      * 3B phone calls / day
    

(better numbers appreciated)

I would have expected the fraction to be either less than 1% (because they're
targeting intelligently) or more than 95% (because they store almost
everything).

------
rdl
The strangest thing about the NSA is how dependent they have become on
contractors (just like the rest of the military, and government), especially
for IT/ops stuff. The actual cryptographers and cryptanalysts are GS
employees, but most of the computer systems used by the NSA seem to now be run
by contractors.

I trust GS employees a lot more, in the long run, to have US national interest
as the highest goal. Sure, they're less efficient in a lot of ways, and get
great benefits, but I think that's an acceptable price to pay.

------
orthecreedence
Interesting post/numbers, but I have to say that honestly, I don't care that
much about surveillance. I've resigned to the fact that on a statistic level,
I'm being watched. I don't care. I have nothing to hide, and if I did, I'd use
SSL/Tor...problem solved.

People forget that the interwebzzzz is a public network. Anybody can connect,
and it's fairly easy to set up a sniffer and grab info from people. You don't
need to be the NSA. Also, cell phones are sending their signals _through the
air_. You don't even have to splice a cord. If you want private calls, use a
landline.

People want to have the comfort of complete anonymity but also have the
conveniences that comes with using the _least_ private forms of communication.
Pick one or the other, and understand the trade-offs.

Another thing, the NSA doesn't give a rats ass about you. They're looking for
specific patterns/keywords that set off "hmm we should listen more closely to
that call" triggers. They don't care what you had for dinner or that your
grandpa just had a heart attack. In fact, very few people do.

People _want_ to feel special and unique, which I feel like is the main source
of the sensationalism around privacy issues, but honestly, nobody but your
close friends/family cares about your secrets or what's going on in your life.
I guarantee the NSA doesn't either.

~~~
true_religion
> In fact, very few people do.

This is an odd attitude. Just because few people want to commit a crime,
doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about crime.

And make no mistake, domestic spying is a criminal act.

~~~
orthecreedence
"In fact, very few people do" as in "nobody cares about what's going on in
your life" not "nobody cares about crime being committed."

Also, domestic spying is a waste of resources, yes, a crime, depends on the
definition I would think. Like I said, these are open networks.

------
jasonkolb
"chasing the pizza delivery guy" is a pretty dead giveaway that they're using
algorithms to mine this data and not even double-checking by a human.

------
gringomorcego
Fun facts about the NSA: 1). There were limits imposed on teaching encryption
techniques by the NSA. These limits were taken away in the early 90's. I have
read this in military technology books at my school, but sadly I can't find
any online sources. I'm pretty sure they were legit (they were in the military
science section) but my failure to find other support is making me question
myself. 2). The existence of _NSAKEY 3). Differential cryptanalysis was
withheld by/from academia (but NSA strengthened DES against it) 4). The NSA
has made severe investments into probabilistic CPU's, and enjoys tricking
others into believing they are focusing on quantum computers. NTRU and other
encryption standards most likely exist that are already strong against Shor's
algorithm. The benefits and cost of a qc make it a very big in-joke.

In no way do I doubt that the NSA has the best intentions for the USA. But, I
do have doubts about whether or not their beliefs, and how they impose their
beliefs, might be actively discriminating against things that could rise the
tide for everyone. I think that sharing technology will always be seen as a
form of dissidence and aiding the enemy, while I guess I'm stuck believing
that transparency and the sharing of knowledge are all we can do to help
others question themselves. The need for security and the desire to predict
the moves of others can make one scared of stepping openly and boldly towards
what is best for all. I hope they are sleepless not out of fear of the enemy
but out of fear of becoming their own enemy. I don't doubt most already are,
but I have a habit of getting quite sad when I think about what wonders they
hold from us all.

But who am I but another armchair idiot with an internet connection.

~~~
kibwen
This reminds me of an amusing anecdote from PGP's Wikipedia article:

    
    
      "Zimmermann challenged these regulations in a curious way. 
      He published the entire source code of PGP in a hardback 
      book,[12] via MIT Press, which was distributed and sold 
      widely. Anybody wishing to build their own copy of PGP could 
      buy the $60 book, cut off the covers, separate the pages, and 
      scan them using an OCR program, creating a set of source code 
      text files. One could then build the application using the 
      freely available GNU Compiler Collection. PGP would thus be 
      available anywhere in the world. The claimed principle was 
      simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and 
      software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of 
      books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was 
      never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases 
      addressing other encryption software, however, two federal 
      appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic 
      software source code is speech protected by the First 
      Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
      Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
      Junger case)."
    

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy>

------
Craiggybear
There is something seriously wrong with human civilisation.

