Never have so many charged so much to keep tabs on so few: what is the "real" cost of PRISM

[bemildred]

I recently read a New York Times article on how the US drug enforcement surveillance database supposedly dwarfs that of the NSA. It does not, however, say how much they paid. This led me into pondering how much is paid by whom and to whom for access to the data on our browsing habits and social networking activities that we signed away in the small print of internet service provider or mobile phone contracts, let alone that now being collected via "apps". And that is before we begin to consider all those botnets run by "criminals", i.e. those unwillling to pay for "legitimate" access. I suspect the proportion data actually used is similar to the proportion of CCTV footage viewed by human eyes of genuine value: usually worthless but occasionally priceless.

---

The first suggests that the current controversies might cause US Cloud earnings to shrink by 25% . The second suggests that Google and other members of the Internet Engineering Task Force are so concerned over the impact on their revenues that they may seek to undertake the long overdue re-engineering of Internet Security that is necessary to prevent such surveillance.

I particularly commend the second because it raises the question of who paid for the basic infrastructure of the Internet and why - an infrastructure designed to attract all the worlds communications to pass through a handful of peering centres where the NSA, GCHQ (and their allies) could monitor it.

Today everything you do is also being monitored by their Russian and Chinese equivalents and by your telcos (fixed or mobile) and internet service providers (including social networking, search engine and webmail providers) for sale to those who wish to target you for .... ???

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/when-it-meets-politics/2013/09/never-have-so-many-charged-so.html

[unhappycamper]

1. The Germans are also pissed:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/alternative-for-germany-anti-euro-party-could-upset-german-election-a-920805.html

[bemildred]

2. Mr. Snowden's timing has (fortuitously I suppose) proven to be excellent.

It's like a perfect storm.

[unhappycamper]

3. It isn't as if the NSA hasn't been seriously spying on the world for a loooong time.

Internet Encryption? Gone.
Privacy? Gone.
Fourth Amendment? Gone.
Phone calls? Saved for future reference.

[leveymg]

4. We signed away our privacy not for safety,as some surmise, but for convenience, which always has

hidden costs. Maybe, it should not be surprise that many parties are taking advantage, but that doesn't mean we can't simply find ways to shut most of them out, and where we can't shut them out, make it far more costly for them to pry into our private lives.

[bemildred]

6. +1. nt

[bemildred]

5. The internet was never about privacy or security. It was always about scaling up well.

It had to be. Then the money boys came along and they saw an opportunity to make money. Boy did they. But, to have privacy, you must have controls, and when you have controls, you no longer scale up as well. The net is by design a public space, the trouble arises when people want to "take it private".

Back in the 80s and 90s when they started automating financial transactions, I thought it was a mistake, because it would be expensive and insecure. I still do. I don't put ANYTHING I really want private on the net, and I avoid financial transactions on the net for the same reason. And I have little to hide.

When you connect your private space to the net, you create the privacy problem. So you have to ask: is it worth it?

[blkmusclmachine]

7. When is Obama's next Catfood Commission convening?!?!

Don't have money for everything.

Bye-bye, retirement.