Skip to main content

View Diary: Glenn Greenwald's Old Game (210 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Betrayl of complete misunderstanding of this story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found

    Techies have no idea what this story is about.

    •  BTW (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mk3872, Red Bean, eltee, DeadHead, deep info

      This is not a denial or "walkback"

      The Guardian understands that the NSA approached those companies and asked them to enable a “dropbox” system whereby legally requested data could be copied from their own server out to an NSA-owned system. That has allowed the companies to deny that there is “direct or indirect” NSA access, to deny that there is a “back door” to their systems, and that they only comply with “legal” requests – while not explaining the scope of that access.
      The funny thing is none of you "techie" geniuses apparently believe Clapper.
      •  re-qualifying "direct access" to dropbox (4+ / 0-)

        is not a walk back?  You are cute as a fucking button sometimes.

        Talk to your IT Staff Armando.

        Hey btw... I have "direct access" to Microsoft too then.  shhh... don't tell anyone though.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 07:03:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not every techie is stupid about this (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, Armando, Wisper, deep info

        And journalists are often hilariously non-technical for reasons that only God knows. To them a server is a server, whether it's a CT server or a FTP server.

        For techies familiar with telephony, the story has long legs. Phone companies routinely spit out data to their corporate's part of what companies pay for when they contract with a carrier for their PBXs. Sometimes it gets ftp'd or ssh'd or sent via DVD/CD. Similiarly, PBXs have built-in mechanisms to spit out call data, usually to some sort of text file. The last thing you want or need is to have anyone having direct access to the database that sits behind all this. With telephony, everything is about speed. A typical time-out in the programming world might be 10 or 30 seconds. In the telephony world, a latency over 3 ms is considered too long. Direct access to the system would cause latency and it would just be stupid because the data would have changed 10 times in the time you took just to get to it.

        So..very few folks anywhere have DIRECT access to the systems that generate this call data because it's not practical. However, these systems spit out data on a regular basis (every second, or minute, or hour, depending on traffic and/or settings) and that practice is an industry standard.

        Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter whether Greenwald thinks an FTP server is part of Verizon's system or not. A so-called "techie" dissing the whole story because he thinks Greenwald doesn't know what a server is is irony at best and deliberate misdirection at worst.

        •  That's interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deep info

          Obviously I can't speak to what you write as I admit to having no knowledge in the field.

          For the reasons I have stated, I did not think it an important part of this story.

          But if what you write is correct, then it does point to misdirection or lack of knowledge on the point by the techs criticizing Greenwald.

        •  Two things (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ, NYFM

          1.  Why would anyone want direct access to the senseless raw switch data?  I think it's safe to say its definitely the database, most likely Oracle on systems this large, that has all the call metadata and transaction logs.  So the Dropbox server is still limited to packaged metadata which is what we've known the government has been monitoring since 2002.  

          2.  There is one MAJOR point here though.  That output file, however many fields it contains, is NOT in anyway the same as the pearl-clutching outrage machine is carelessly speculating as "the EBIL gubmint has access to listen in to all our calls!!!1!!"  THAT'S what many IT people have been consistently saying is nonsense.  

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 09:13:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  call meta data says a lot (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deep info, NYFM

            When it is matched up to all these other sources like facebook and gmail it says even more. The only way to make good matches is to sweep up everyone's data from all these sources. Where is the matched but innocent (ie non-terrorist) being kept? Who has access to Or after the next election?

            You are also assuming that it IS just a dropbox of metadata. Yet there have been quotes about using the metadata to fetch recordings in the past. How are those recordings being made? For and by whom?

            Google call recording software for call centers. The technology is mind blowing. They can record calls via the cloud and then analyze those records to determine a speaker's emotions.

            Too much over reach and too much risk of data misuse.

    •  So, what's the story "about", Armando? (0+ / 0-)

      You've said that three times in these comments.

      Is the story about whether the feds survey any data? Or is it the quantity of the data that's in question?

      Non futuis apud Boston

      by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:46:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i wrote a post about it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep info
        •  Maybe I can fairly summarise that diary (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fou, Argyrios, Tony Situ, deep info

          as saying the scope of the data cannot possibly fall within the legal requirements?

          And if so, then is it unreasonable to suggest that (a) Greenwald has misrepresented that scope, and (b) understanding the technology would lead us to a better understanding of exactly how large that scope really is?

          Non futuis apud Boston

          by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:26:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  On a (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kenlac, deep info

            I think the story used inaccurate info describing "direct access" but that was due to the inaccuracies of the NSA documents.

            On b no, the technology is not really germane, since the providers hand over info on request.

            •  On answer B... (5+ / 0-)

              it depends on what it's germane to. For a while there the popular belief was (and to a fair extent still is) that the NSA simply trawled ALL data, and had a direct access point from which to do so. Understanding the tech is germane to knowing that belief is inaccurate, but not germane to the point of whether we should still consider lesser surveillance proper, whether legally or ethically.

              On answer A, I think you are being too charitable to Greenwald, but that's subjective.

              In the end, the diarist is making charges against Greenwald. That may not be the most important "story" -- not the big picture story, if you will -- but it most certainly is a legitimate story to examine. It's perfectly possible for the surveillance to be inappropriate AND for Greenwald to be playing games at the same time.

              Non futuis apud Boston

              by kenlac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 08:18:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Hes harping on Section 702 (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM, ord avg guy, Argyrios, Tony Situ, Sylv

        which he thinks can be used to show the FISA request violated Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT.  

        The "I wrote about it" comment is his reference to his long diary that lays out a grandiose legal argument that is all based on publicly reported facts at the very end he admits Clapper has stated on record are inaccurate but.. oh fuck it.. here's Armando's words:

        DNI Clapper has claimed that the reporting in PRISM is inaccurate. Perhaps so. But the government has lost all credibility on this matter. At this point they have to show us, or show someone we trust.
        So all of Armando's trademarked drive-by "you're an idiot/not a lawyer/not as smart as me" comments are based on his own "Perhaps so."  ....Legal Blogging at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.  Be sure to tune in to his radio show.

        Take it with a 50lb bag of salt.  He knows as much and as little as you do.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 06:40:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site