Hacker News Reader

Comment by astrodust | Hacker News Reader

Headline two years in the future: "US plans submarine mission to tap into undersea cable."

Been there, done that. That's what the USS Jimmy Carter is for:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/07/18/the-navys-u... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_(SSN-23)

I came here to mention that the NSA/Navy could already tap undersea fiber ... and to implore everyone to encrypt their traffic.

Is it even possible to transmit all of the tapped data?

It's possible to transmit part of it with a buoy and a satellite connection or using UHF transmitters but if the data is encrypted it seems like it would be impossible to determine the important data or transmit all of it.

They could just junction it and run their own cable back to the US. Probably too expensive, but hey why not.

TFA says the project will cost $185 million. That's not what the US military would consider expensive.

It's probably cheaper to sell compromised routers to network operators.

The NSA doesn't understand what this "too expensive" thing is you're talking about.

Which brings up the interesting question: What happens if someone is bold enough to blow up a US submarine that's spying?

Depends. Is the submarine manned?

Yes.

The submarine also contains a fully-operational nuclear reactor.

I guess just saying that you know it's there, and asking the US to remove the submarine would be enough to make its government go insane.

Very, very few nations would be bold/crazy enough to pull something like this. I don't know, would DPRK or Iran go this far?

Snowden already leaked this info, it just isn't public yet.

It's already public: http://www.dawn.com/news/1077275/nsa-tapped-into-undersea-ca...

I think you missed the joke. The first paragraph clearly says it's "top secret" and "confidential", so even though it was published by the Spiegel, it's not public information. Got it?

I know, it only makes sense in NSA's distorted rhetoric but if this is disputed in a court, that is what you're going to hear (that the information is not public, as in, it should not be disclosed).

> I know, it only makes sense in NSA's distorted rhetoric

Any US citizens propagating this information would probably be in big trouble precisely because of that. I am not sure about this, but IIRC, US citizens may even get in trouble for reading this information if they lack proper clearance.

A US citizen is under no legal obligation to do or not do anything with "classified" information. That is a standard that only its employees must observe.

I can go to Wikileaks and read Snowden and Assange-backed papers all day long. Govt. employees on the other hand aren't allowed to read that info even though it's already public (even at home, even on their own time).

Interesting. Thanks for clarifying. I wonder if those files can have other restrictions tied to them, such as being transported or copied between two computers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com