The Myth: They can see everything you do!!! Especially if it is digital. [FALSE]

in #conspiracy8 years ago


While the NSA and the government can indeed see a lot of what you do, and there are some markets where they can see everything it is not true in many cases. Those that I agree with in trying to wake people up will often state that they capture and see everything digital. This is not true.

I am a network engineer and I work in the VOIP industry. I also deal with a lot of hacking attempts and other information that we have. This tells me quite a few things.

First for them to intercept and capture your data it must cross places they are tapped into. NOT all calls transit through such nodes. Many calls are what is called ON NET and if they are VOIP they likely never go through a large carrier that might be such a node. Such calls will not be monitored or recorded. This is why people are often trying to hack VOIP providers and Asterisk boxes to be able to make calls.

Now there is a compliance type of thing known in the industry as CALEA. This is compliance where if a federal government or agency wants to TAP a specific call they can do so. It does not do ALL calls ALL the time as that would bring the internet circuits for any of these VOIP providers to their knees. They have to login and intentionally monitor a specific DID (phone number). Likewise, it does not sit there listening to all calls and for keywords and then jump on that call.

However, if you are on nodes that are connected to large internet backbones then something like this might be possible. For this reason it is possible such monitor everything is available if your calls are on T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc or if your call transits across their network. Though I suspect most of that is an urban myth as well. The amount of bandwidth required by all of the networks out there would need to be exorbitant. Sure the NSA may have high bandwidth, but that only matters between them and whichever network switches/hubs/nodes they connect to. It doesn't mean all of the rest of us and our networks magically have the required bandwidth to accomplish this.

Furthermore, the activities you do on your computer likely will not be noticed unless your traffic passes through a location they are monitoring or if they have been tipped off that they intentionally need to monitor you.

You can put a packet sniffer/capture program on a network and monitor what flows in and out of it. That sniffer is only useful for traffic that passes through it's technology.

So the THEY SEE EVERYTHING is a myth.

There are a couple of places where they may be able to make this myth no longer a myth.

If there are smart agents and devices locally that listen for keywords they MIGHT be able to send signals and indicate that you are a person of interest. So are there any devices that might do this? Well, it'd likely come in the form of things that listen to your voice and act helpful. Sound familiar? Siri? Amazon Echo? Alexa? Cortana? Other devices that listen for voice commands?

If you have any of those (which is becoming more common) then those could be a vector for making that myth more realistic.

The other way it can be done is if you have been targeted and spyware/malware is planted on your computer or device that can be tapped much like CALEA to send traffic to an alternative site.

The main thing to know here is that most of what the claims about NSA and their abilities are is a myth. Though some of it is true, and as we get more and more devices that listen to our voices the more plausible it becomes that they will cease to be mythological.

Sort:  

Great analysis, re-steeming this.

Grest post I like the way you put things together but for me the whole NSA is just out of control!!!

Yes. I agree and their capabilities are expanding. It is better to be cautious than to be lax, but I did want to deflate some of the idea that they have omnipotent data capabilities.

Very helpful post. Makes me have a better look on how it works and what I have to worry about or better what not to worry about

Are the Steem transaction memo-fields beginning with a # be unreadable?

I think that is only on steemit.com. I believe they still show up on steemd.com and other websites that view the blockchain.

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.

Isn't that a correct view of the situation?

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!

You tend to need to come to their attention and THEN they start trying to find ways to monitor you.

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

They might be spreading the myth themselves, it's an effective fear-spreading tool. Once again I will refer to the communist experience of my life. Back then people believed there were bugs hidden everywhere - ashtrays in the restaurants, the lamp in the hotel room etc. 'The walls have ears'. It was obviously impossible, but people watched their mouths nevertheless.

Very Interesting post, now I will be very careful when talking to my girlfriend 😊. But seriously; who should we be to have their attention ??

No clue. I am not that paranoid about such things. I was inspired to write this when I saw a commentary where someone saying if you do something digital THEY KNOW simply because I know that is not necessarily true, but a lot of people think it is.

As we add more devices that listen to us for keywords in becomes more plausible, but without those it requires being more targeted than most people realize.

So a network engineer is at an advantage when it comes to knowing how to maintain one's privacy?

How does one become a privacy-conscious network engineer?

Nope. It just means I know of cases where calls and other data never leave our network. I am also involved with setting up CALEA in the future, so I know they currently have no way to tap our network. Thus, those are examples of the statements "if it is digital they can see it", or "they monitor all calls". Those are absolutes and I've seen many cases it is not true. So it must be a myth.

I am sure they DO monitor a lot of the large carriers as they likely have deals. I also wouldn't be surprised that as calls leave our network and go out on our various outbound carriers we work with that there could be monitored nodes somewhere out there. So when a call comes from T-Mobile, Sprint, etc then it goes from those big networks hits one of our partnered providers and then is routed to us. Those calls could be monitored and it wouldn't surprise me if they were. However, if people are making calls to other people on our network and it never has to transit to one of those other locations then currently those cannot be monitored. This will be change. Yet the change will not be in the form of a catch all. It will be in the form of a CALEA request and them being able to tap specific DIDs.

As to how one becomes such a person. Thinking? Introspection? Willingness to question narratives rather than assume they are correct because of some appeal to authority? Not sure.

We do get probed and hammered by hack attempts frequently. It is amazing how fast those probes can come.

It makes sense for the establishment to propagate the narrative that they can see and hear everything. The narrative keeps us well behaved.

Guaranteeing privacy becomes cumbersome and inconvenient, but convenience is becoming a basic need in this era.

This post has cleared many doubts about the data privacy. Your points are logical and only malware attack can lead us into the trouble.

Yes, it is logical that it is a myth. I really like your viewer

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.09
TRX 0.30
JST 0.034
BTC 113566.23
ETH 4066.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 0.60