RE: Office 365..? how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages
--- rwebb@ropeguru.com wrote: From: Robert Webb <rwebb@ropeguru.com> At least there are some that try and take a stand for their customer and not just hand over the keys to the palace when the good ole boys ask. ----------------------- Like web search engine startpage.com scott
What I find particularly troubling is this image of the govt paying for these surveillances. The price seemed to be from around $325 for an install plus $10 to $750 install and $500/mo. Now, let's not drop right into the easy and trite "don't they deserve to be reimbursed" right off. Sure, they/we do. But was this reimbursement, or profitable? The troubling image that goes like this: ISP VP #1: Any revenue ideas? ISP VP #2: I hear XYZ is being paid pretty good money for surveillances. ISP VP #1: How much? #2: Word is Verizon is getting $775/install and $500/mo. #1: How many of these are they handling? #2: I don't know, maybe millions of them? #1: Millions? You're talking half a bilion a month? #2: Well, that's VZ. #1: Still...what's the COGS? #2: Not much, sunk cost mostly, some netadmin labor, might need a few extra hands to form a team if it scales up, billing, sales, some PR and contract management. #1: Wow, how do we get a piece of this? #2: Let me make a few calls and get back to you... Accurate? Plausible? Nonsense? http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRICE_OF_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-10-06-07-53 or http://tinyurl.com/kj2pelb -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'bzs@world.std.com');>
wrote:
What I find particularly troubling is this image of the govt paying for these surveillances. The price seemed to be from around $325 for an install plus $10 to $750 install and $500/mo.
Now, let's not drop right into the easy and trite "don't they deserve to be reimbursed" right off. Sure, they/we do.
But was this reimbursement, or profitable?
From the capex perspective, it can be high and complex for most based on
IMHO surveillance is not a profit center. Most don't get enough requests for critical mass and the efficiency to allow for that. The costs referenced in the article are not entirely unreasonable either if you think about the process from service to execution, end/end. The fact that there are associated fees at all is a positive in terms of a deterrent to "some" abuses and act as one level of accountability. Expenses require justification even in the government. The actual cost for the government to operate a surveillance end to end and depending upon where in the ladder it is can be significant, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a week. That usually translates into what matters e.g. surveillance of parking offenders vs. terrorists. the lack of significant volume. That's where the surveillance managed services come into play, to help to cut the expense. Standard offering: http://www.verisign.com/static/001927.pdf Shaping the expense picture: http://www.neustar.biz/carrier-services/operational-solutions/how-comply-wit...
The troubling image that goes like this:
ISP VP #1: Any revenue ideas?
[ clip ]
Accurate? Plausible? Nonsense?
I'd go with the latter. You'd need volume and that kind critical mass, at least last I knew, was limited. Here's the last askCALEA congressional report(s) I can find that contain some numbers around that: http://askcalea.fbi.gov/reports/docs/2009wiretap.pdf [ Anyone know if there is anything later or newer? This transparency is important ] I'm not quitting my online collaboration tools just yet. YMMV, and Best, -M< [ clip ]
participants (3)
-
Barry Shein -
Martin Hannigan -
Scott Weeks