You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Myth: They can see everything you do!!! Especially if it is digital. [FALSE]
Interesting! A dose of calmness followed by an aftertaste of fear!
It's hard to look at pictures of that new NSA facility in Utah and not imagine they can collect all the data they want.
In any case we've avoided the voice-recognition devices, as far as we know. We took the batteries out of the new voice activated remote control for the cable TV box when we realized we never watched TV any more.
Let me put Utah into perspective. It still needs internet bandwidth and connections for all that data to flow. It does have huge connections. Yet the internet and bandwidth is more like a bodies circulatory system (though closer to a web as multiple directions possible) which means there are smaller and smaller vessels.
Those vessels can only support so much data flowing through them. Yet for Utah to monitor that data it must make it to them.
If you do a VOIP call that takes 100Kbps (depends on version) one way, then that would need to be doubled to send the call to Utah as well.
So it'd require 200 Kbps of your internet instead of 100 Kbps.
Now this may seem plausible. Until you consider we have people doing call centers and 15 calls on a T1 which is 1.544 Mbps.
If they were sending that info all back over to Utah then that would require two T1s.
We would be seeing calls, and downloads and all kinds of internet saturation problems which we do not see.
Now what they can do is go to a big backbone node where data passes through and mirror it to themselves. Yet a lot of data never needs to go to those nodes. Thus, there is a lot they wouldn't get in the mirror.
Hacking, and monitoring calls are far different than what Television and Movies have made us think. This is another reason the Russian hacking allegations are very stupid.
What you are saying is essentially what I believe, except that it is pretty impossible to know that your data isn't crossing through big nodes. In fact, big nodes are big nodes because little data, at least data that goes very far, doesn't go through them.
Isn't that a correct view of the situation?
It would seem that mesh networks and IPFS, which both default to local connections where possible, would least potentiate the NSA data harvest. I have but a cursory grasp of these technologies, but that is my present understanding of them.
It is possible, but it'd require traceroute or something like that before doing other things. Though you wouldn't know where they are tapping in.
My point is that a ton of the things you do do not cross such places. A lot of people think they know everything. They don't. TV shows and movies are fake as far as hacking and tracing phone calls.
You tend to need to come to their attention and THEN they start trying to find ways to monitor you. They can't take a step back and look at what happened in the past in most cases. They have to be actively aware of you for some reason.
IPFS could help NSA a lot as far as data harvest.
So sending a text a couple hundred miles might not have to go through such a node, while an international call, or email, would be much more likely to.
Thanks!
Well sending a Text passes over a Cellular network. They may have worked out deals with mobile carriers to actually record all of that stuff. Yet, VOIP calls only need to go onto one of those carriers IF the person being called has their number on that network, or if you are calling from that network.
So it is possible for miscellaneous smaller VOIP providers or even people that spin up their own to avoid most of that type of thing, but that doesn't really cover Text (SMS).
SMS it wouldn't surprise me if most if not all SMS were captured. That takes up way less bandwidth than the voice part.
Ok. So texts are prolly the least likely communications to be secure then, while VOIP is far more likely, at least for short hops, to be secure.
Thanks!
which is why if you are going to be engaging in Information War or anti-corruption efforts, you should take the steps to create an separate "persona", and to maintain that personas' privacy as much as possible
Too late for me on that front. :)
LOL, in the same boat.
In my more paranoid states, I think my biz SEO failed because I snarked off to some Google employee on a forum so many years ago; this covers more than just the gubmint!
but it's also why I made the focus of the first post in the infowar series about the ways to set up that persona