|
Grab your tin foil hat and see if AT&T/NSA is sniffin your CPU
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Anyone have night vision goggles handy? Well if you do the following and see an att.net show up, you might wanna check the night sky for those black choppers :D
According to the whistleblower on those secret NSA rooms in AT&T:
| quote: | Tuesday, 27 June 2006
The Newbie's Guide to Detecting the NSA
It's not surprising that an expert hired by EFF should produce an analysis that supports the group's case against AT&T. But last week's public court filing of a redacted statement by J. Scott Marcus is still worth reading for the obvious expertise of its author, and the cunning insights he draws from the AT&T spy documents.
An internet pioneer and former FCC advisor who held a Top Secret security clearance, Marcus applies a Sherlock Holmes level of reasoning to his dissection of the evidence in the case: 120-pages of AT&T manuals that EFF filed under seal, and whistleblower Mark Klein's observations inside the company's San Francisco switching center.
If you've been following Wired News' coverage of the EFF case, you won't find many new hard revelations in Marcus' analysis -- at least, not in the censored version made public. But he connects the dots to draw some interesting conclusions:
* The AT&T documents are authentic. That AT&T insists they remain under seal is evidence enough of this, but Marcus points out that the writing style is pure Bell System, with the "meticulous attention to detail that is typical of AT&T operations."
* There may be dozens of surveillance rooms in AT&T offices around the country. Among other things, Marcus finds that portions of the documents are written to cover a number of different equipment rack configurations, "consistent with a deployment to 15 to 20" secret rooms.
* The internet surveillance program covers domestic traffic, not just international traffic. Marcus notes that the AT&T spy rooms are "in far more locations than would be required to catch the majority of international traffic"; the configuration in the San Francisco office promiscuously sends all data into the secret room; and there's no reliable way an analysis could infer a user's physical location from their IP address. This, of course, directly contradicts President Bush's description of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program."
* The system is capable of looking at content, not just addresses. The configuration described in the Klein documents -- presumably the Narus software in particular -- "exists primarily to conduct sophisticated rule-based analysis of content", Marcus concludes.
My bullet points don't come close to conveying the painstaking reasoning he lays out to back each of his conclusions.
Perhaps the most interesting -- and, in retrospect, obvious -- point Marcus makes is that AT&T customers aren't the only ones apparently being tapped. "Transit" traffic originating with one ISP and destined for another is also being sniffed if it crosses AT&T's network. Ironically, because the taps are installed at the point at which that network connects to the rest of the world, the safest web surfers are AT&T subscribers visiting websites hosted on AT&T's network. Their traffic doesn't pass through the splitters.
With that in mind, here's the 27B Stroke 6 guide to detecting if your traffic is being funneled into the secret room on San Francisco's Folsom street.
If you're a Windows user, fire up an MS-DOS command prompt. Now type tracert followed by the domain name of the website, e-mail host, VoIP switch, or whatever destination you're interested in. Watch as the program spits out your route, line by line.
C:\> tracert nsa.gov
1 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 12.110.110.204
[...]
7 11 ms 14 ms 10 ms as-0-0.bbr2.SanJose1.Level3.net [64.159.0.218]
8 13 12 19 ms ae-23-56.car3.SanJose1.Level3.net [4.68.123.173]
9 18 ms 16 ms 16 ms 192.205.33.17
10 88 ms 92 ms 91 ms tbr2-p012201.sffca.ip.att.net [12.123.13.186]
11 88 ms 90 ms 88 ms tbr1-cl2.sl9mo.ip.att.net [12.122.10.41]
12 89 ms 97 ms 89 ms tbr1-cl4.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.122.10.29]
13 89 ms 88 ms 88 ms ar2-a3120s6.wswdc.ip.att.net [12.123.8.65]
14 102 ms 93 ms 112 ms 12.127.209.214
15 94 ms 94 ms 93 ms 12.110.110.13
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * *
In the above example, my traffic is jumping from Level 3 Communications to AT&T's network in San Francisco, presumably over the OC-48 circuit that AT&T tapped on February 20th, 2003, according to the Klein docs.
The magic string you're looking for is sffca.ip.att.net. If it's present immediately above or below a non-att.net entry, then -- by Klein's allegations -- your packets are being copied into room 641A, and from there, illegally, to the NSA.
Of course, if Marcus is correct and AT&T has installed these secret rooms all around the country, then any att.net entry in your route is a bad sign.
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/in...ntry_id=1510938 |
Muhaaa, MUUHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Brother. Oh Big Brother...... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Here in Canada, we're willing to give up a little civil liberties for National security as most polls indicate.
How do you guys feel about the NSA doing their job down there? |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| Actually, my sister works for AT&T and she said she sees the NSA and other government personell all the time. :nervous: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Here in Canada, we're willing to give up a little civil liberties for National security as most polls indicate.
How do you guys feel about the NSA doing their job down there? |
Considering that our country was founded on freedom and civil liberties, and it is truly one of if not the most protected and sacred pieces of our Constitution, I would say that provided that the NSA or this Administration comply with our current laws esp. FISA, I have no problem with our government doing their jobs.
Failing to comply with our laws, failing to have the proper necessary oversight gives credence to abuse of power historically. Perhaps you are aware of such abuse of power by both of our parties prior to FISA enactment, which is exactly why it was created back in the late 70's. It was the very lack of checks and balances, the very lack of proper oversight to which we decided to become a free nation from tyrannical rule. I'm sorry if certain polls suggest that people feel they wish to give up certain liberties to be protected in such a manner. I'm aware that similar polls occur here in our country. OTOH, other polls suggest a large majority believe Bush is abusing his power. A poll from AOL on Tuesday June 27th showed this:
| quote: | AOL Online Poll:
(Over 50,000 responses)
1. Which branch of government do you trust the most?
Judicial: 55%
Legislative: 24%
Executive: 20%
2. What do you think of the way President Bush uses presidential power?
He goes too far: 74%
I approve: 23%
He doesn’t go far enough: 4% |
Of course that isn't as scientific as other national polls, but I do think it is telling. And given the recent slapdown by the SCOTUS decision on just how far Bush can go with his executive powers in a "time of war" (even though Congress has never officially declared as such, and even though the last 7 of 9 SC appointees were by REPUBLICAN Presidents), it appears that our Judicial system agrees as well. And if we didn't have a GOP lapdog Congress that's more than willing to look the other way as Bush bends their asses over and ignores them at every opportunity, we may even have a Legislature that would fully agree.
The interpretation by this Administration of laws enacted thanx in large part to Bush's attorney's like John Yoo have been, at the very least, quite a stretch to interpretation. This entails everything from rendition, torture, detainment, Iraqi invasion, illegal wiretaps, and so on. It's not simply a question of why they would enterpret such. Much of their theory flat out contradicts Federalist paper 69, which a Conservative law professor opines here:
| quote: | Yet scholars from across the political spectrum question the historical cases Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made. In an effort to find backing for their view of presidential power, these scholars argue, the administration has quoted selectively, taken passages out of context, and simply ignored what many constitutional scholars say is the Federalist Paper that most squarely addresses the president's wartime powers: Federalist 69.
Richard Epstein, a conservative law professor at the University of Chicago who embraces originalism, said Federalist 69 shows that the administration's legal theory is "just wrong" and called its failure to acknowledge the paper "scandalous."
"How can you not talk about Federalist 69?" he said. "All you have to do is go on Google and put in `Federalist Papers' and `commander in chief' and it pops up."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/id...mended_reading/ |
Indeed, here's Justice Scalia of all people in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld discussing this:
| quote: | "Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King:
'It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 357.'"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZD.html |
Alexandar Hamilton describes the President as "nothing more" than the "first general" in the military hierarchy. Of course Yoo dismisses the significance of Federalist 69 as "rhetorical excess", which I suppose I would too considering that it is absolutely antithecal to his version of Executive Absolute Power (as is Cheney's and the rest of this Administration for that matter). A good article on the matter can be found here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/id...mended_reading/
So again, to answer your cute little snide comment, I have no problem with my government doing their jobs, including the NSA.
Unfortunately for twits like you and this Administration, you seem to have such a terrible disdain for the very principles to which our country and form of government was founded. I for one do not wish to cave in and lose our dissimilar viewpoints to the likes of those enemies we wish to engage and defeat, because if such a result occurs how exactly do we not become those fascist extremist s to which we are trying to eliminate? I for one fail to understand how such safeguards given to us by FISA and even LOOSENED by the Patriot Act cannot be implemented, such as having 72 hours to obtain a warrant for a wiretap RETROACTIVELY, unless you can explain how such a particular safeguard has somehow hurt our chances to catching a terrorist. Because as I've mentioned, these safeguards are the necessary checks and balances from abuses of power that historically have indeed occurred in our particular country.
But for twits like yourself you have somehow caved in to that Coulterestque viewpoint that disagreeing with Bush in any sense is somehow equivalent to being FOR the terrorists, being UNAMERICAN, being UNPATRIOTIC.
It's sad to see, but it's also quite clear that such individuals as yourself are exactly that - you ARE much more for the terrorists, much more UNAMERICAN (even though I know you're Canadian), and much more UNPATRIOTIC than I ever could be since you believe that throwing away the very freedoms and liberties that our country was founded upon is a necessity. that.
In order to defeat those who attacked us, in order to have worldwide support and cooperation to understand how important this war is and how it must be fought - WE MUST LEAD BY EXAMPLE. We are Americans, and we have fought many times over for our Democracy, freedoms and liberties that we so much enjoy and that which so many across the world admires. How could they possibly admire us if we, or shall I say, if BUSH deems it appropriate to ing piss away that which is the foundation for our freedom in the ing first place? There is no sense to such abuse of power if indeed you are an American.
But since you are a Canadian, well I'm afraid this American most certainly cannot speak for you, nor would he even have any idea how to try. Sorry.
Oh yeah, one last thing - is it the job of the NSA to monitor phone calls and internet traffic to millions of people DOMESTICALLY? I didn't realize so many Americans were al Qaeda members. How could millions of AMERICAN citizens somehow be tied to al Qaeda, if indeed this story is true? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
Actually, my sister works for AT&T and she said she sees the NSA and other government personell all the time. :nervous: |
  |
|
|
| josh4 |
Have you ever posted information about yourself on a web profile or social network site?
Like TA's user profile...
| quote: |
Pentagon sets its sights on social networking websites
"I AM continually shocked and appalled at the details people voluntarily post online about themselves." So says Jon Callas, chief security officer at PGP, a Silicon Valley-based maker of encryption software. He is far from alone in noticing that fast-growing social networking websites such as MySpace and Friendster are a snoop's dream.
New Scientist has discovered that Pentagon's National Security Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology - specifically the forthcoming "semantic web" championed by the web standards organisation W3C - to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals. |
http://www.newscientist.com/article...=mg19025556.200 |
|
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
|
Just called her to confirm what she said. She's been interrogated numerous times because she was a "Reference". Dunno wtf that means. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| I really need to copy all mu porn onto a disk and delete it!!! |
|
|
| Marc Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I really need to copy all mu porn onto a disk and delete it!!! |
Just the kiddy porn! :p
Totally joking, I don't think you do that! |
|
|
| josh4 |
| Considering what goes on in PDD I'm sure we've all already been profiled. No doubt Opus' file has been red flagged. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
Just called her to confirm what she said. She's been interrogated numerous times because she was a "Reference". Dunno wtf that means. |
that means the investigators were given her name by a third or fourth party (maybe the first party, the investigated person) during either, usually, a routine background check for clearance, or maybe even a criminal investigation. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
No doubt Opus' file has been red flagged. |
Aww em. Red flag, shmed flag. Guess I forgot to give my morning pledge to the Kremlin one time, which probably signalled my lack of allegiance to my ruler King.
You should also be a bit worried in your own right - your pics are pretty revealing,
.....if that's who you really are........... |
|
|
|
|
