[43973] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: FBI is at it again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Mon Oct 29 14:42:16 2001
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:51:32 -0500 (EST)
From: alex@yuriev.com
To: Daniel Golding <dgolding@sockeye.com>
Cc: Larry Diffey <ldiffey@technologyforward.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <GKEFKKIKGCMICPKBAEIMKENECDAA.dgolding@sockeye.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10110291444280.21498-100000@s1.yuriev.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Daniel,
> Are you kidding? The problems with this are numerous. First, the source is
> Fox News, which is about a half step up from the Drudge Report. Secondly,
> what is the basis for believing that this is even possible? I am unaware of
> any technology that would allow all internet traffic to be proxied through a
> single location.
Unfortunately, just because we know how difficult it is to provide a
solution to this problem, does not mean that everyone subscribes to it. One
should not discount the argument made based purely on the source,
especially since recently a few very "interesting" articles showed up in a
number of publications, including current issue of Forbes. The author, whose
name escapes me at this time, is under the ill-belief that since the
internet traffic does flow though hubs, it would be possible to intercept it
and store it on the computers located in those hubs. It is more likely that
a white paper describing the issues arising from attempts to intercept and
store that much data would do better than an argument about unreliability
of the source.
Alex
--
