Quote Originally Posted by it-ogo View Post
TOR is proved to be unsecure. I2P only.
Really?! Well I know that you know your stuff, so if you say so...
I tried I2P mail a few years ago, but I dropped it because I didn't really feel my security needs were so dramatically high.. I'll check it out again.

However it's a PRINCIPLE, if nothing else. I will not have old Blighty or "The Land of the Free" or anyone else stealing and storing my data!

I can't believe they actually cracked 128 bit encryption though! Isn't that supposed to be essentially impossible with today's computers?

However I noticed that my wacky VPN provider just started offering 256 bit encryption out of, among their other options.

Apparently the Americans are SAVING the encrypted data that they capture, to unencrypt in the future, when they hope to have better processing power.
Meanwhile, the cooling power they need for this gigantic data facility is mindblowing. No way Russia is wasting money on this kind of project, plus I think somebody would have blown the whistle if this was going on. I don't think a lot of the serious backbones of the internet goes through Russia anyway, so it would only be domestic information. I don't think Russia does that on any grand scale. Probably nothing more than checking social network and occassional tapping of emails and phones of targettied people.

I hope Russia stays out of this new Cold War in Cyberspace.


Quote Originally Posted by E-learner View Post
It is as good as revealed in this Wikipedia article: "Для непосредственно прослушивания разговоров решение суда официально требуется, но для получения другой информации (например, о фактах совершения вызовов) санкции суда не требуется. В то же время технических ограничений на прослушивание разговоров нет".

I hope you can appreciate this turn of phrase -- "решение суда официально требуется" instead of "требуется решение суда".
Yeah allright. I am not surprised to hear that either. It's definitely what I expected and I don't like it.

However, they ONLY listen to people they actually suspect of something, essentially.
They don't take ALL of EVERYONE'S data and store it for future reference, which seems to be what the USA is doing.

I think everyone accepts that police will have to investigate online activities of suspected criminals. But the difference is when you just spy on everyone as a matter of principle.

The whole "metadata only" claim has been contradicted several times. It seems almost certain that they take ALL text from EVERYONE, and then analyse it afterwards. And they can pull out whatever they want in the future, supposedly,

Obviously there is technical limitations to how effectively you can handle such large data quantities today. But in the future it might be a piece of cake to cross reference everything and build a file on everyone. Everything they ever said to anyone, essentially. Then they can go ahead and give anyone a security clearance score based on their online behaviour, and zoom in on people of interest and possibly victimize those with a bad rating.
All in secret of course..