ans Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Just curious, if I used an email client it could go direct to manx.net mail,but if using a web browser would/could it go via various servers? Depends what ISP you're using. As has been pointed out already, if the Government had the ability to monitor your Internet usage and intercept your communications, we wouldn't be relying on PC World Repair Technicians to discover your child porn stash in order to catch online paedophiles. It's an utterly preposterous conclusion to come to and one that really does illustrate the gulf in understanding and intelligence that tinfoil hat donning nitwits like Dodger and Cronky have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Welcome to computers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 ans, in my post I said: Does domicillium security screen manxnet internal emails on behalf of other jurisdictions? I don't know whether the Echelon filter screens local e-mails. That's why I posed the question. You could write to the Home Office in the UK and ask them whether RAF Menwith Hill monitors all e-mail traffic in the British Isles but I doubt you will get an answer. e-mails sent to the USA or via the USA would be a different matter. The Chief Minister has issued 34 warrants issued under the Interception of Communications Acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 You may very well have said that in another post, but we both know that's not what I'm referring to. Specifically, I'd like you to expand on this. Answer me this, if I send you a message and we're both on manx.net mail addresses, how does teh governent super sekret computarz intercept that? Via Domicillium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 ans, the reason I ask the question is because I don't know! I assume that a warrant to intercept communications means e-mails as well as telephone calls. Technically I don't know how that would be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Who said anything about a warrant? I think we've already worked out that you don't have any technical knowledge at all. Perhaps you'd be better off trying to educate yourself with something other than a Tom Clancy novel when it comes to security and such like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Ans, I imagine my point of view is closer to your's and Slim's ... but I assume intelligence agencies do attempt to gather information on a vast scale. How about this from Jane's Defence Weekly A primary weapon in America's fight against terrorism is the National Security Agency's (NSA) fabled 'Echelon' system. A global network of satellites and listening posts feed a constant data stream of intercepted telephone, e-mail, microwave and cellular telephone transmissions into banks of NSA computers equipped with 'dictionary' search algorithms to tag items of interest. Echelon's interception abilities are quite extraordinary. Investigations by the European Parliament have placed the system's intercept capacity at three million fax, e-mail and telephone messages per minute. The system's utility is nonetheless constrained by a number of factors. Echelon satellites are unable to penetrate fibre-optic communication cables, which must be directly tapped. Furthermore, the increasing availability of 128-bit and higher encryption algorithms has considerably slowed the speed at which Echelon's supercomputers can crack encrypted messages. Finally, the NSA's translators are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the traffic that must be translated from such difficult languages as Arabic. There are simply too few native-born qualified translators and interpreters to access all incoming material. The problem is not one of a lack of information; it is finding relevant intelligence information in an ocean of electronic chaff. Another Link Its interesting that these are both pretty old - I dread to think how things have advanced since these articles were written! Jane's is reputable - no idea about this, but again interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 I think we've already worked out that you don't have any technical knowledge at all. The debate is about surveillance policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 The validity of the article is questionable, for example: Furthermore, the increasing availability of 128-bit and higher encryption algorithms has considerably slowed the speed at which Echelon's supercomputers can crack encrypted messages. Clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 The debate is about surveillance policy. No it isn't. The (stupid) statement I question is Dodgers bumbling: "Guess which company is responsible for the E Borders technology............Raytheon, the parent company is in the USA, so looks likely that the data would link through at some stage! " This assumption that because a US company is involved, that all data is available to the US is daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 The validity of the article is questionable, for example: Furthermore, the increasing availability of 128-bit and higher encryption algorithms has considerably slowed the speed at which Echelon's supercomputers can crack encrypted messages. Clueless. Can you elaborate - remembering that this article was written in 2001. I thought large key encryption was still a serious issue in crime prevention with public key technology readily available. The US has export restrictions on encryption technology - they must believe it is an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 Can you elaborate - remembering that this article was written in 2001. I thought large key encryption was still a serious issue in crime prevention with public key technology readily available. The US has export restrictions on encryption technology - they must believe it is an issue. It's a serious issue in crime prevention because those keys can't be decrypted. The US export issue has largely gone away, they still make a show of requiring a license to export software that creates keys and bannin exports to certain obvious places, but it's pretty pointless now as open source encryption algorythms are used nowadays and are free of US export restrictions. This is what the whole RIM into India thing was about, it's a strongly encrypted mass market closed system, virtually impossible to snoop on and the widest used mobile comms gadget in the west. The Indian govt didn't like the idea because it's so secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 I am now confused - the article raises the problem of encryption - you say they are clueless - you know seem to be agreeing that there is a problem with encryption. Is your point that the article says its difficult to crack with a supercomputer while you are saying its impossible? If so we are down to quibbling over the level of your agreement. Plus I imagine the CIA/NSA/FBI has access to quite alot of supercomputer time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 Your reference to RIM and India also to me show a weakness in your faith that US corportions won't cooperate with the US and other authorities to give them "back door" traceablility, readability etc. The conspiracists (and slightly more reputable sources) claim the printer companies have cooperated to make printers identifiable - a great help for law enforcement and intelligence work! In China Yahoo just handed over ISP and email information from Hong Kong into the mainland with no legal justification just to maintain business cooperation with the CPC. My understanding is that the Patriot Act and its successors have produced an environment where the US intelligence agencies are actively demanding cooperation - and Presidential executive orders (maybe unconstitutionally) have further increased these demands. Obviously practically this probably has little relevence to the IOM, BUT money laundering etc will mean very powerful US agencies will have an interest in finding out about some "business" operations on going on the Island. Do you really say there is no possiblility of them attempting to read IOM emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 I am now confused - the article raises the problem of encryption - you say they are clueless - you know seem to be agreeing that there is a problem with encryption. The article says 128 bit keys have slowed the decryption rate. A commonly quoted statistic with 128 decryption is that even with the fastest computer available today, it'd take longer than the age of the universe to brute force a 128 bit key. Think about it, 2^128, that's a shitload of keys. As a point of perspective, Distributed.net took five years to break a 64-bit key, using about seventy thousand computers. Is your point that the article says its difficult to crack with a supercomputer while you are saying its impossible? If so we are down to quibbling over the level of your agreement. Plus I imagine the CIA/NSA/FBI has access to quite alot of supercomputer time! It's hard enough that it might as well be impossible. Take AES, which is the current in vogue encryption method, it's a publicly available cypher that's also cleared by the NSA themselves to carry top secret information vital to national security. If there was much of a chance of AES being decrypted, would the NSA use it themselves? If 128bit AES was crackable, we'd know about it. Firewalls and VPNs that are widely used by corporates would be useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.