> "You can't "intercept the internet" without comprehensive coverage, and the only practical way of doing this is via the ISP. I know it went right over your head, but tapping into "the internet" by intercepting a cable would only allow you to read traffic over that cable."
Because, you know, the Chinese equipment UK ISP's install for normal control of their networks is not as capable as the same Chinese equipment US ISP's install for normal control, that the FBI use all the time to intercept VoIP calls, [encrypted] video, emails, etc. all day long... just as soon as there is a legal warrant for the particular person involved, and the ISP routes that traffic through the specified box(es) at the monitoring center...
> "What GHCQ want to do is cover every cable by monitoring them at the ISP, ok?"
Just like the US does now, with the normal equipment already installed. The US just has to have a warrant, just like the UK does now. The GHCQ just want to be able to do this without having to deal with warrants or judges or "probably cause".
> "The reason they can intercept telephone calls here is because they have access to the network. If you'd read it properly, you would have seen this in the story "Obviously, the tool requires physical access to the network being targeted""
You know, like, physically plugging a cable into the Internet... hmmm... If the ISP is able to "intercept" it, then they can route/copy packets to the authorized, legal monitoring center when there is a warrant.
> "If the government had physical access to your network, then they would be able to do it as well. However it's simpler, faster and cheaper to put boxes in the ISP's than put one in every single network in the country."
Yeah, put the boxes in the ISP, to bypass the current capability to route this traffic based upon the ISP's subscription information for the person listed on the duly requested and judge approved warrant. After all, warrants and judicial review are so pesky, aren't they? And, its not like the ISP would know which IP address was which address or person at any particular time of day (disregarding time zones, eh)? Oh, what's that?...
> "I do hope your one of the 20% of visitors here that's not actually working in IT."
It is obvious you do not work in governmental oversight... I mean, security, IT. If you do, then this is disingenious to even the non-IT readership here. Sorry, but I do. I know current systems have to do this, because its _my_ job if it _doesn't_ do it.
Anonymous - "I could tell you, but then I'd have to..." That's a quote, not a threat, so no option for you to sue or file complaint, sorry. Sorry, there's someone at the door. I am so used to the stomping of jack boots in unison, it no longer is worth getting excited about anymore. But, I know they like my coffee... :)