nat%drao.nrc.CDN%ean.ubc.ca@BUITA.BU.EDU (Natalie Prowse) (04/14/88)
It has recently come to my attention (from a very reliable source), that long-distance phone calls from Canada to the U.S. are monitored. According to my source, a U.S. agency runs several Crays which do speech recognition and analysis, monitoring calls between Canada and the U.S. (and other countries too, I would suppose). This system searches for specific keywords and records conversations which contain information which would be of interest to this (and other?) government agencies. Having not been on the net that long, I am curious as to whether or not this has been discussed before. Is it true, partially true, or a complete falsehood (an "urban myth")?? It certainly is possible, which disturbs me greatly. If it is true, will my message be intercepted on the net, and never reach this list??..... Natalie Prowse Dominion Radio Astrophisical Observatory Penticton, B.C., Canada
bowles@LLL-CRG.LLNL.GOV (Jeff Bowles) (04/14/88)
From: Natalie Prowse <nat%drao.nrc.cdn%ean.ubc.ca@buita.BU.EDU> Subject: long-distance monitoring It has recently come to my attention (from a very reliable source), that long-distance phone calls from Canada to the U.S. are monitored. According to my source, a U.S. agency runs several Crays which do speech recognition and analysis, monitoring calls between Canada and the U.S. (and other countries too, I would suppose). This system searches for specific keywords and records conversations which contain information which would be of interest to this (and other?) government agencies. Having not been on the net that long, I am curious as to whether or not this has been discussed before. Is it true, partially true, or a complete falsehood (an "urban myth")?? It certainly is possible, which disturbs me greatly. I believe that calls to all eastern block (bloc) countries are monitored or at least examined, after the fact, with the idea that specific keywords or projects need to be "noticed". For example, if there's a code word for "particular type of nuclear sub" and it keeps being mentioned in a call to Moscow, well, that's interesting to the NSA. In the U.S. calls to local police/fire stations are often monitored or recorded, but if they're operating strictly within the law, there's the periodic "beep". Calls to Canada monitored? Hmm. I wouldn't be suprised. You'd be a fool to believe that "our government would NEVER do something like that." Jeff Bowles ps. Did you get that, guys? Could you at least contact me to tell me where you stored this conversation - I'd like a copy.
fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) (04/15/88)
In <48*nat@drao.nrc.cdn> Natalie Prowse <nat%drao.nrc.cdn%ean.ubc.ca@BUITA.BU.EDU> writes: > It has recently come to my attention (from a very reliable source), that > long-distance phone calls from Canada to the U.S. are monitored .. > searches for specific keywords .. In _The_Puzzle_Palace_ Bamford asserts that all long-distance communications in and out of the country are indeed monitored, and cites his reasons for asserting this. Crimethinkers have always taken comfort from the fact that there is simply too much traffic for human snoops to completely monitor, but .. Bamford also says that the NSA tries to stay 5 years ahead of the state of the art. The "state of the art" is that machines are very close to recognizing (and so transcribing) connected speech, or at least keywords. Item: several years ago there was an entry in the Commerce Busi- ness Daily asking for a system that could, given a passage of speech, identify the language it was conducted in within 15 seconds. (This is an *unclassified* request, mind you.) Item: in the March 1988 _IEEE_Computer_ is a description of a system for phonemic transcription of connected speech. Is it paranoid or is it prudent to assume that those acres of NSA computers can snatch interesting words out of the ether ? Fred Baube #include <disclaimer.h> /nsa/grep < "assassinate plutonium stealth NRO heroin spam"
bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (04/16/88)
I suppose part of the problem for NSA et al is not so much hiding the fact that they are doing such snooping but hiding any actions they are taking based upon such information (for historical reference, the US and Britain decided to not take some actions in WWII that had some fairly serious consequences because it would lead Germany to the inescapable conclusion that their codes had been cracked, I think this happened with Japan also.) Sure, some things can be done, but at some point taking action against citizens or other agencies might lead to the question of how certain information was obtained. It seems like a tightrope walk, either you tip your hand or you limit yourself to only use information which doesn't tip your hand as to how you got it. -Barry Shein, Boston University
fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) (04/16/88)
In <8804151949.AA15453@bu-cs.bu.edu> Barry Shein writes: > I suppose part of the problem for NSA et al is not so much hiding the > fact that they are doing such snooping but hiding any actions they are > taking based upon such information .. the question of how certain > information was obtained. It seems like a tightrope walk .. > -Barry Shein, Boston University Earlier in the 80's analysts/pundits/etc were predicting a wave of terrorism in the US, and certainly the conditions motivating terrorists have not changed, but this "wave" never materialized. How come ? (I'm not complaining, mind you.) In newspaper accounts of some trials, there are cryptic referen- ces to the sources of tips, or to how the government arrived at a lucky guess about what the bad guys were up to. If the NSA *were* dropping hints in the feds' ears, wouldn't there be various and sundry pressures, and alibis, to camouflage such a role ? #include <disclaimer.h>
sbrunnoc@eagle.ulowell.edu (Sean Brunnock) (04/17/88)
In article <8804151130.aa03631@note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: > >Bamford also says that the NSA tries to stay 5 years ahead of the >state of the art. The "state of the art" is that machines are >very close to recognizing (and so transcribing) connected speech, >or at least keywords. Are the CIA and the NSA practically one organization? I have seen many job ads for computer science graduates by the CIA. They boast about their acres of state of the art computer systems and such, but I can't remember seeing job ads from the NSA. Also, who makes the stuff for NSA? By machines are you referring to hardware or software? Sean Brunnock University of Lowell sbrunnoc@eagle.cs.ulowell.edu
parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) (04/17/88)
In article <6285@swan.ulowell.edu> sbrunnoc@eagle.UUCP (Sean Brunnock) writes: > Are the CIA and the NSA practically one organization? I have seen >many job ads for computer science graduates by the CIA. They boast >about their acres of state of the art computer systems and such, but >I can't remember seeing job ads from the NSA. > No, they are not the same. You can find NSA job ads in various publications, like the IEEE magazines. They both have their own acres of computers.
federico@actisb.UUCP (Federico Heinz) (04/17/88)
In article <8804141418.AA02735@lll-crg.llnl.gov> bowles@LLL-CRG.LLNL.GOV (Jeff Bowles) writes: > For example, if there's a code word for >"particular type of nuclear sub" and it keeps being mentioned in a call to >Moscow, well, that's interesting to the NSA. Yeah. Particularly if the code word is "How's uncle Tom?". I also read about this kind of monitoring, extended also to radio broadcasts, but I can't recall the source. I think it was BYTE magazine in a "speech processing" issue, but I'm not sure about it. I don't know how effective this kind of procedure might be. But I am worried about the erroneous "hits" such a system can produce, and the possible consequences for the people involved. -- Federico Heinz "In Dubio Pro Libido" BIX: fheinz | Beusselstr. 21 UUCP: ...!unido!tub!actisb!federico | 1000 Berlin 21 Tel: (030) 396 77 92 | F.R. Germany.
piet@ruuinf.UUCP (Piet van Oostrum) (04/18/88)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.9 of Mon Mar 21 1988 on ruuinf (hcx/ux)
In article <48*nat@drao.nrc.cdn> nat%drao.nrc.CDN%ean.ubc.ca@BUITA.BU.EDU (Natalie Prowse) writes:
It has recently come to my attention (from a very reliable source), that
long-distance phone calls from Canada to the U.S. are monitored. According
to my source, a U.S. agency runs several Crays which do speech recognition
and analysis, monitoring calls between Canada and the U.S. (and other
countries too, I would suppose). This system searches for specific
keywords and records conversations which contain information which would
be of interest to this (and other?) government agencies. Having not been on
the net that long, I am curious as to whether or not this has been discussed
before. Is it true, partially true, or a complete falsehood (an "urban myth")??
It certainly is possible, which disturbs me greatly.
If it is true, will my message be intercepted on the net, and never reach
this list??.....
I heard rumours (or read in the paper) that Great Britain has a similar
system for (what they call) overseas calls (nice to live on an island :-).
Maybe this is even used for all transatlantic calls from Europe?
--
Piet van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht
Budapestlaan 6, P.O. Box 80.012, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Telephone: +31-30-531806 UUCP: ...!mcvax!ruuinf!pietflash@ee.inference.ee.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) (04/19/88)
In article <411@ruuinf.UUCP> piet@ruuinf.UUCP (Piet van Oostrum) writes: >In article <48*nat@drao.nrc.cdn> nat%drao.nrc.CDN%ean.ubc.ca@BUITA.BU.EDU (Natalie Prowse) writes: > > It has recently come to my attention (from a very reliable source), that > long-distance phone calls from Canada to the U.S. are monitored. According > to my source, a U.S. agency runs several Crays which do speech recognition >I heard rumours (or read in the paper) that Great Britain has a similar >system for (what they call) overseas calls (nice to live on an island :-). >Maybe this is even used for all transatlantic calls from Europe? >-- >Piet van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, University of Utrecht References: <718@btnix.UUCP> of uk.general In article <718@btnix.UUCP> agray@btnix.UUCP (Andy Gray) writes: > >The Speech and Language Processing Division at British Telecom Research >Laboratories is currently embarking on a data collection exercise for speech. >This involves recording certain words spoken by a range of different people. > >If you would like to take part in the exercise please could you ring > > 0800 581 722 > >and respond to the instructions. Please note that this is a Link-Line >If you happen to ring from outside the UK please ring > +44 473 643050 >The lines will be open for a full 24 hours on 20th April, that is, from 23.00 >GMT on 19th April (00.00 BST 20th April) to 23.00 GMT on the 20th April. >E-Mail (UUCP) AGray@axion.bt.co.uk ...!ukc!axion!AGray >Organisation British Telecom Research Laboratories (RT3134) >Snail Mail BTRL, Rm G23 B68, Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH IP5 7RE, UK >Telephone +44 473 646647 From: flash@ee.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) Reply-To: sheridan@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk or_perhaps_Reply_to: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk Distribution: World
doug@isishq.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (04/24/88)
UN>From: nat%drao.nrc.CDN%ean.ubc.ca@BUITA.BU.EDU (Natalie Prowse)
UN>It has recently come to my attention (from a very reliable source),
UN>that
UN>long-distance phone calls from Canada to the U.S. are monitored.
Interesting. If you have it from a *reliable* source you probably know
more about it than anyone else :-) -- what's the source?
UN> According
UN>to my source, a U.S. agency runs several Crays which do speech
UN>recognition
UN>and analysis, monitoring calls between Canada and the U.S. (and
UN>other
UN>countries too, I would suppose). This system searches for specific
UN>keywords and records conversations which contain information
UN>which would
UN>be of interest to this (and other?) government agencies. Having
UN>not been on
UN>the net that long, I am curious as to whether or not this has
UN>been discussed
UN>before. Is it true, partially true, or a complete falsehood
UN>(an "urban myth")??
UN>It certainly is possible, which disturbs me greatly.
Well, I've heard lots of talk of this, and often from people with the
U.S. *.mil arpa addresses. They were talking about the net being
monitored. Clearly, it's not all that hard to do. A while back, some
people started deliberately filling their signature files with USSR,
ASSASSIN, HIJACK, etc. etc. etc., with the explicit intention of
swamping any such monitoring device.
Whether there is deliberate spying or not, I think you have to be aware
that unless you have a good encryption system, there is no such thing as
a private message in the net. System administrators can (and do) read
msgs on their way through.
I try to take the approach of never saying anything I wouldn't be
prepared to repeat in any situation. What bothers me about security
surveillance is the lack of checks and balances. What I'm confident
would be acceptable discource among most of my countrymen may not be
acceptable to some NSA fellow if it happens to involve such subversive
ideas as fostering good relations with other countries, such as the
USSR, or preserving Canadian independence against American cultural
aggression. To you or me these might be pretty innocent ideas, but
imagine what an Ollie North could do with them!
UN>If it is true, will my message be intercepted on the net, and
UN>never reach
UN>this list??.....
UN>
UN> Natalie Prowse
UN> Dominion Radio Astrophisical
UN>Observatory
UN> Penticton, B.C., Canada
UN>
Well, it got to Waterloo, but of course didn't have to cross the border
to do it. No, they wouldn't likely intercept, just put you on a list to
watch, and if you ever applied for certain kinds of jobs . . .
Moscow Washington Communist Capitalist Cuba El Salvador Nicaragua Arms Legs
-- Well, that should trip the Cray :-) -- if anybody *is* listening,
drop us a line and join the fun :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St.,
UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-3-11
Waterloo, Ontario
Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1
Internet: doug@isishq.math.waterloo.edu (519) 746-5022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
* Origin: ISIS International H.Q. (II) (Opus 1:221/162)
SEEN-BY: 221/0 162 172 doug@isishq.UUCP (Doug Thompson) (04/24/88)
UN>From: fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube)
UN>In newspaper accounts of some trials, there are cryptic referen
UN>ces to the sources of tips, or to how the government arrived
UN>at a
UN>lucky guess about what the bad guys were up to. If the NSA
UN>*were* dropping hints in the feds' ears, wouldn't there be
UN>various and sundry pressures, and alibis, to camouflage such
UN>a
UN>role ?
UN>
One thing's for sure: if someone hired me to operate a secure computer
communication link I sure would't send any traffic through usenet in the
clear :-) -- I'd use massive encryption at the very least so those poor
little crays would have to spend at least an hour per word to figure out
what I was saying.
I'm much more inclined to suspect that voice lines are monitored. After
all, if the NSA wants to know what's going on in Usenet they only need
to get a usenet feed -- and I imagine they already have one.
Besides, all the *really* good stuff is in the can.* newsgroups that
never cross any borders :-) :-)
-- Moscow Washington Communist Capitalist Arms Legs Cuba El Salvador --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St.,
UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-3-11
Waterloo, Ontario
Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1
Internet: doug@isishq.math.waterloo.edu (519) 746-5022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
* Origin: ISIS International H.Q. (II) (Opus 1:221/162)
SEEN-BY: 221/0 162 172 tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) (04/25/88)
In article <39.22719274@isishq.UUCP> doug@isishq.UUCP (Doug Thompson) writes: > >Well, I've heard lots of talk of this, and often from people with the >U.S. *.mil arpa addresses. They were talking about the net being >monitored. Clearly, it's not all that hard to do. A while back, some >people started deliberately filling their signature files with USSR, >ASSASSIN, HIJACK, etc. etc. etc., with the explicit intention of >swamping any such monitoring device. I've noticed this too, and I've oftened wondered exactly what those people were trying to do. Presumably, they object to the US form of government and want to see America infiltrated/weakened/whatever. So, to those of you out there who do this: am I right? Or won't you admit to being anti-US? (Yes I realize I'm going to get flames about this... I'm expecting it.) -michael j zehr
cs2531bn@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (04/25/88)
>> ...A while back, some people started deliberately filling their signature >> files with USSR, ASSASSIN, HIJACK, etc. etc. etc., with the explicit >> intention of swamping any such monitoring device. > > I've noticed this too, and I've oftened wondered exactly what those > people were trying to do. Presumably, they object to the US form of > government and want to see America infiltrated/weakened/whatever. > So, to those of you out there who do this: am I right? Or won't you > admit to being anti-US? > > -michael j zehr Anti-US? I doubt it. "Protesting" a particularly nasty aspect of US policy, if the net is indeed being monitored? Quite likely. Look at it this way -- no one seriously interested in infiltrating or "weakening" the US is going to be sending such messages in the clear, over an easily-accessable data network. Therefore, if such a program of monitoring exists, these people are assuming that this program's intent is to find those persons who show an interest in "sensitive" subjects and put them on a list somewhere, for unspecified future use...presumably nefarious. While I think that trying to "swamp the software" with buzzwords is kind of silly (it's fun the first few times, but gets old after a couple of years), I think that reacting to it in the way you are is even sillier. Is anyone who questions any aspect of US policy automatically "Anti-US"? Do you actually believe that, or do you just use it as a shield to protect yourself from the thought that maybe...just maybe...this government is doing things it probably shouldn't be doing? Or is that a totally alien concept? It seems to me that a citizen has not just a right, but a *duty* to keep his eyes open, and start asking questions if he thinks things are happening that shouldn't be. It also seems to me that this discussion is getting far beyond the realm of the newsgroup it started in. I'm directing followups to talk.politics.misc. Lazlo Nibble /\/oo\/\
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (04/26/88)
In article <4848@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) writes:
:
:I've noticed this too, and I've oftened wondered exactly what those
:people were trying to do. Presumably, they object to the US form of
:government and want to see America infiltrated/weakened/whatever.
:So, to those of you out there who do this: am I right? Or won't you
:admit to being anti-US?
:
:(Yes I realize I'm going to get flames about this... I'm expecting
:it.)
In fact it was writting just to cause them. For NO other reason.
:-michael j zehr
I'm sure the amount of email you'll get will be incredible. But no one
is going to subject the net to any postings about it, right? I hope.
This is just the wrong forum for comments like that; they don't provoke
helpful or reasonable discussion. Follow up to talk.political.flames or
where ever.tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) (04/28/88)
Sorry for my posting. I didn't think about it in advance and thus didn't realize it was inappropriate. -michael j zehr