Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.

Bert:
Certainly all Internet traffic has to be printed out and read by
analysts.

Similarly, all voice traffic is monitored in real time by individual
analysts, who transcribe everything by hand.

Isn't that right, Davoud?

Hey, you're the SIGINT expert. You tell me how it's done.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

"Davoud" wrote in message ...


There is not yet a computer that can do that kind of analysis and make
connections from prior experience and /gut/ /feelings/ the way a human
can.

It's not far away. Turn on subtitles on your TV and you'll see some very
funny gaffes that a computer can make ( or say "Ok Google" followed by
the word you want to search for). It is obvious computers have gone
from character recognition to word recognition and are now entering
cliché recognition, after which will come context awareness and sentence
recognition. "It's a grey day" sounds just like "it's a grade 'A'" and
context
gives the meaning, whether it is eggs or weather, or weather it is ex or
whether.
Computers have been better chess players then humans for two decades,
do not underestimate their capabilities.
A human that says "I mean its like you know ex sounds kinda like eggs" is
going to be recognised as a teenager by the computer's "gut feeling".
-- Ravioli

"Pastor Ravi Holy of Geity Spa" wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in message ...


There is not yet a computer that can do that kind of analysis and make
connections from prior experience and /gut/ /feelings/ the way a human
can.

It's not far away. Turn on subtitles on your TV and you'll see some very
funny gaffes that a computer can make ( or say "Ok Google" followed by
the word you want to search for). It is obvious computers have gone
from character recognition to word recognition and are now entering
cliché recognition, after which will come context awareness and sentence
recognition. "It's a grey day" sounds just like "it's a grade 'A'" and context
gives the meaning, whether it is eggs or weather, or weather it is ex or whether.
Computers have been better chess players then humans for two decades,
do not underestimate their capabilities.
A human that says "I mean its like you know ex sounds kinda like eggs" is
going to be recognised as a teenager by the computer's "gut feeling".
-- Ravioli

Subtitles on live programmes are all done by humans.The mistakes are due to
humans working at the limit of their ability.

Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
Why do you suppose NSA is advertising for linguists in Arabic,
Mandarin, Korean, and Russian? To oil the translating machines?

Quadibloc:
That is true enough, but if they can scan telegrams for the English word
"bomb" by computer, they can do the same with the equivalent Arabic word.

It is to laugh. Do you think that terrorist discussing a planned
bombing by e-mail would use trigger words? "The bomb is ready" might
typically look something like "I talked to your father and he said that
the family is well." That's why the identity of the writer (as
determined by the bulk processing of metadata) is important. If John
Savard sends an e-mail saying "I talked to your father and he said that
the family is well" it won't be seen, because the sender is not a
person of interest. Let me say that again: no one in the Allied SIGINT
community is listening to your phone calls or reading your e-mail. But
if the metadata shows that a person of interest is the author of an
e-mail, it will be captured (and entirely legally) and translated and
read by a human being. That human might not know what "I talked to your
father..." means, but the human analyst is skilled and experienced and
has a dossier on the terrorist communicator and a "feel" for the target
that comes from long experience (but not on John Savard, who is
entirely unknown and of no interest to him). If the analyst is
sufficiently skilled and lucky, he may fit the pieces of the puzzle
together and begin to see a picture emerging. The analyst, of course,
does not act on that information; he passes it to other government
agencies who may or may not deem it to be worth investigating on the
ground via surveillance (expensive) or other means.

There is not yet a computer that can do that kind of analysis and make
connections from prior experience and /gut/ /feelings/ the way a human
can.
The problem is not that they are listening but that they can listen.
Any phone call can essentially be tapped and the US and UK governments use
each others services to get round domestic legislation.
And it's not just governments who can tap our calls. The press can get hold
of information this way too.
And even the fruitcakes -remember climategate. aits easy to cherrypick
emails to give a misleading impression to the gullible
Who are the gullible? You can fool all of the people some of the time which
is just long enough to get elected to the presidency.

In Davoud wrote:

Bert:
Certainly all Internet traffic has to be printed out and read by
analysts.

Similarly, all voice traffic is monitored in real time by individual
analysts, who transcribe everything by hand.

Isn't that right, Davoud?

Hey, you're the SIGINT expert. You tell me how it's done.

From your response to Oscar, I took it that you were claiming to be the
expert. I'm simply relating how I thought you told us it was done.

Did I get something wrong?

--
St. Paul, MN

On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:06:43 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:

It is to laugh. Do you think that terrorist discussing a planned
bombing by e-mail would use trigger words? "The bomb is ready" might
typically look something like "I talked to your father and he said that
the family is well."

That certainly is likely. Where *would* trigger words be useful?

One way would be if one is monitoring to find people who are *recruiting*
future terrorists.

If you're going to _plant_ a bomb, then of course you would agree to use
codewords and the like.

But people like Anwar al-Awlaki need to speak to their audience in the clear,
and so a lot of traffic needs to be scanned to find his successors as they
spring up.

John Savard

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:14:04 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:
Certainly all Internet traffic has to be printed out and read by
analysts.

Why do you think analysts are unable to read a computer screen?

Then we also have the problem of available resources: there are far
too few analysts available to read everything on the Internet.

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:42:41 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:14:04 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

Certainly all Internet traffic has to be printed out and read by
analysts.

Why do you think analysts are unable to read a computer screen?

Given the amount of traffic they would have to read, avoiding the eyestrain of staring at a computer screen seems to be important!

John Savard

Bert:
Certainly all Internet traffic has to be printed out and read by
analysts.

Similarly, all voice traffic is monitored in real time by individual
analysts, who transcribe everything by hand.

Isn't that right, Davoud?

Davoud:
Hey, you're the SIGINT expert. You tell me how it's done.

Bert:
From your response to Oscar, I took it that you were claiming to be the
expert. I'm simply relating how I thought you told us it was done.

Did I get something wrong?

I am an expert. 32 years worth. Everything else, you got wrong.
Especially your use of the word "all."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:06:43 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:

It is to laugh. Do you think that terrorist discussing a planned
bombing by e-mail would use trigger words? "The bomb is ready" might
typically look something like "I talked to your father and he said that
the family is well."

That certainly is likely. Where *would* trigger words be useful?

One way would be if one is monitoring to find people who are *recruiting*
future terrorists.

If you're going to _plant_ a bomb, then of course you would agree to use
codewords and the like.

But people like Anwar al-Awlaki need to speak to their audience in the clear,
and so a lot of traffic needs to be scanned to find his successors as they
spring up.

John Savard

Sometimes people are too stupid to use codewords and yet are still
dangerous.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30200311