Typing on an internet forum isn't considered a whole bunch of effort. I mean, I type at 73 wpm, and most of my replies, especially to you, are much less than that. It's funny how much effort is put into fighting "shills" on the internet. I mean, you can insult me for doing this, but the finger points right back at you. If it's stupid or I get paid, or whatever you think is the case, for me to be on the internet, it can be equally applied to you. That's why that argument is so stupid, yet it's deployed with regularity over here.
Jesus, no they don't. That's my point. Do you have any idea how much space that would take? It is so completely stupid to think that all of the information is being store that it's just ridiculous. Your idea flies right in the face of reality. I don't care if YOU, specifically, believe it or not. I am saying that, due to my experience in my field of work, I know that it's not realistically possible. So if that's what you have to tell yourself to make sure the "gubbmint is ebil 'n things", then go right ahead. I am just saying that I know better, and I am hoping that if there is anyone that's not a regular here, and happens to be reading this, they won't believe the garbage you're spewing. Do some simple research on the cost of data storage and remember that the most simple of communications takes up space, and there are billions, BILLIONS of communications sent per day. The thought that they could be store is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded on it's face.
It's a simple form of controlling information. It's cheap, and it's effective. Whether or not YOU personally participate in this particular form of manipulation is speculative. What's "deployed" here regularly is quite apparent to anybody that can can type in search terms on the internet and evaluate the truth, or the lies, for themselves. The internet is a VEHICLE for information. It's up to the reader, or the user of the internet to ascertain what's truth and what's BS. The amount of effort that goes into distorting and scrambling the facts of 911 by "pro" OCTers is beyond obvious, despite your denial that it occurs with regular frequency.
Yes, I do. Do YOU know how much text can be stored in a gigabyte of space? A Terabyte? Gimme a break man. Information storing is virtually unlimited. I work in IT. I'm well aware of the costs of storing data, as well as the simplicity of mirroring everything in real time. It ISN'T that expensive. Many different formats of static memory are utilized to infinity, as well as the "older" style of storing data on hard drives. Text takes very, VERY little space, in an unlimited storage environment of available forms of cheap memory. The ignorance of the capabilities for storing unlimited amounts of data is what it is....ignorance, and just a tad dishonest.
Like that Utah data center. A yottabyte IIRC. The N.S.A. and others would lead us to believe that only metadata is being stored. But as Tom Clemente pointed out on CNN, the government has content and could verify the statements of Tamerlan's wife if necessary.
First off, no you don't. Because if you did you'd realize that, while being correct about a text size, you don't factor in the sheer number of texts. I don't know what field of data you work in, but it's definitely not mass storage. To reinforce, I am fine with you boobs thinking that the government can do this. (LoL at Jango saying "yottabyte" like he has any clue how to quanitify that in the form of actual storage). The funny thing? The storage isn't even half the problem, make it known, I am not conceding my point. The Government CAN NOT store all of the information you guys think it can, but after that, then what? You claim they have all this information? Record all the phone calls, record your chat messages, text messages, video conferences, etc. Then what? (They can't, mind you, it's not possible) Do you have any idea how many people it would take to go through it? Jango can get lost with his "puters dew it LoLz". Because that is just as stupid as thinking the government can store all of the information. Anyway, unless any actual evidence is presented, I think I'm about done with this. You guys have shown that you have no idea what you're talking about. Fraud is to an IT tech, what Koko is to a lawyer.
It is STORED for future scrutiny if deemed necessary at some future point. Try and see how many text documents you can cram onto your pocket flash drive some time, and see if you can run out of space. Try and text your way to the end of even an 8 gigabyte drive. You'll be there a while. Video is easily compressed, as well as audio, and every other form of digital information. Static ram is ridiculously cheap for storing text. If you can't admit that much then, you're not much of an IT tech yourself. Glad you're "done" with it though. The information you present is highly inaccurate.
Don't count on it being 'actually' done though. It says things like that all the time without actually doing them.
I said, "Unless actual evidence is presented." Which, as lonestar just pointed out, Fraud can't do. So yes, I am not replying with detailed replies. Have I struck a bone, Jango? You sure do seem to be following me about, and making sure to reply. Are you being paid to do that? Are you trying to reply to my "disinformation", as you claim? It looks fishy. Have you grown fond of me? It's kind of precious.
Also not factored; The difference between SDU and PDU. The SDU might be rather small, but the PDU required to decode it makes it much larger. A text: "I've got the bomb" is useless unless you know the PDU information sent with that packet.
SO as an example, A typical text: How are you? Is expressed in SMS as the Hex term: C8 F7 1D 14 96 97 41 F9 77 FD 07 This expression is wrapped in a packet that contains a lot of information about how to decode and transmit that Hex term, and importantly who the text came from. 07911326040000F0040B911346610089F60000208062917314080CC8F71D14969741F977FD07 When saved in a typical binary media it becomes: 111100100010001001100100110000001000000000000000000111100000000010000001011100100010001001101000110011000010000000010001001111101100000000000000000001000001000000001100010100100010111001100010100000010000000110011001000111101110001110100010100100101101001011101000001111110010111011111111101000001110000 Which is also wrapped in PDU information that tells the OS how to find this specific string of information. Also a record has to be added to the file system journal (whichever type they use) So. "How are you?" is a small bit of data that is easy to store. If you want to find it ever again, however, or figure out who wrote it, when they wrote it, where they wrote it, how they wrote it, etc. then you have to store a lot of other data along with that small string, and you're going to need a system to keep track of it, and another system to search it with. If you're proposing that we track the entire nation on such a scale, the energy required is not worth the return. After all, most of the folks in government don't care how you are. They only care how you vote.
When memory is virtually UNLIMITED, it IS all about the never ending storage capabilities...slick. - - - Updated - - - Gee, if limited memory was an issue, you might have something there but, it isn't. Here ya go...slick. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/01/1219969/-Data-Storage-and-the-NSA UNLIMITED storage (even on my home pc if I wanted).
LoL so you're going to add a bunch of steps into this now in order to fit it into your theory. You are now talking about having processes in place to crunch all the data. Then when you've crunched it all it's easier to store. However, it's WAY more complicated to get out. Take a look at Amazon Glacier, do some research on how long it can take to retrieve data that has been stored. If you're saving the data then you better know what's on it, or how would you organize it? How would you search it? Meaning you have to have the information reviewed, all of it, before filing it away. Otherwise you have a (*)(*)(*)(*) ton of zipped information now, and no damn way to utilize. You could certainly zip and hold it by carrier or by date, but then you still have to go through the process of understanding it. Which would require you to unzip it, get around any encryption, etc. You guys live in a fantasy world if you think that it's so easy you just snap a finger and this stuff is done. ETA: That article severely downplays the requirements needed to store video. That article is inaccurate and appears to be more "one guys opinion" and less "actual fact".
Ummm..you don't need to have guys sitting around actively "searching" through it. There's these things called super computers, with multi level CPU's to do it FOR you. Gimme a break. Read the link, for starters.
I did, moron. I also went over a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*) in regards to searching it, and what computers can and can't read. Once again, you're complete desire to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing make up fantasy computers that can do whatever you want is stupid. It's completely stupid. You guys "think" it's that easy, it's just not. ETA: Unless, of course, the computers are made of thermite. You guys seem to think that stuff can do whatever the hell you want it too as well.
It's not that friggin' hard as you make it out to be either. Wouldn''t "moron" be considered an insult", or are you exempt from the rules that I get called on routinely? Networks are easily linked together, as is information piles of information., Look on the web sometime, and take a gander on how much information is "stored". CPU's are able to do things not even comprehensible just a few years ago. It's just plain dishonest to suggest that tracking and storing any piece of information that is desired, cannot be accomplished with the ease that it is. Please, gimme a break man.
I don't know, you insult people all the time and then cry when you get insulted. If they want to edit that post out, go right ahead. If they want to ban or suspend me, they can do that too. I'm not going to get all whiney about it, I really don't care as much as you do. Irrelevant, not sure why this would even need to be said. I'm not denying the existence of networks or that they link things together Ok, can I also look at how much isn't? Cause...there's a lot. In fact, some companies are even thinking of making cookies contain more information and their sites contain less. Meaning, your computer will hold more information in regards to that particular website, than it does now. I am not sure it will actually go into play, but there's rumblings in the hosting world of how much space web hosters would save. You mean, technology progresses instead of being stagnant? Thanks! I never knew. Let's put this in the "irrelevant" pile that seems to be growing with you. First off, I have never, ever, ever claimed that you can't track and store ANY piece of information. I have said you can't track and store ALL of the information, which has been stated here in this thread. It's too much, it's impossible. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension a little bit? You have stated all the data is collected and stored, and then they save it for later in case it comes up in further investigation. I have stated that is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and your claim is non-sense. I think I realize what the problem with you and Jango is, you guys don't even read what you're replying too. You just fling (*)(*)(*)(*) like a monkey, and hope you outwit with opponent.
There's no fact in that article, it's based off of nothing but the authors projections. Furthermore, for some reason you can't comprehend. I never said that flagging or storing information is difficult. I have issues understanding why you have difficulties understanding the fundamentals of what I am saying. I am saying that you guys started out saying that the government is collecting everything and storing everything. I blatantly said, no they're not, it's impossible, and I am right. Beyond that, they aren't "collecting" the information, it is being given to them, willingly, by the cell phone carriers, email providers, etc. There is nothing against the law in that aspect. If the government wants to gain any access to anything other than the basic metadata then they have to acquire a warrant. That article is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and the guardian has openly stated their position. No matter what, it isn't even listening to arguments against Snowden, and if that paper could, it would absolutely slobber on Snowden's love parts. Once again, YOU guys can believe it, but you guys will drink any kool-aid as long as it's anti-government. Drink up kiddos
