[tightsocks]

What you have described is domestic policing and I think it is probably mostly correct at lest in terms of activity within the USA.

In the case of the OP who is an 'international investigative journalist' I am assuming that his potential 'adversaries' (for lack of a better word) are various government intelligence (spying) agencies that want to know what he knows but are not concerned about prosecuting him.

If the CIA or Mossasd wants to know what he knows while he is traveling through some European or African country they are not going to serve warrants on the local hotel and march in with the local constabulary in order to search his room - they are going to surreptitiously enter his room and look through his suitcase.
The same applies to his computer and communications data. If the spy agencies want to know what he is up to in terms of cell phone or internet use they are not going to call the local ISP and ask them to fax his account history to CIA HQ, they are going to use their own technological techniques to track and monitor him. Those techniques likely include (for example) the ability to view his laptop screen and capture his keystrokes from the hotel room next door.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

Those techniques likely include (for example) the ability to view his laptop screen and capture his keystrokes from the hotel room next door.

From a technological standpoint this is pure nonsense.

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

From a technological standpoint this is pure nonsense.

Um, no it is not.
Intercepting data via electronic emanations has been known for decades.

TEMPEST - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NHK Van Eck Phreaking demonstration - Spy on Your Neighbor's Computer - YouTube
Tempest Keyboard Eavesdropping carried out by a Security and Cryptography Lab in Switzerland - YouTube

[besson3c]

I'm not going to watch an 8 minute video, why don't you tell us how this is done and how it coincides with your claims based on this/these videos?

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not going to watch an 8 minute video, why don't you tell us how this is done and how it coincides with your claims based on this/these videos?

Just as I said before.
They set-up some equipment next door and can see your screen and keystrokes on their equipment.

So if you are in your hotel room and open a document which you have stored on an encrypted disk image, then the spies next door can see what you are seeing on your screen.

This isn't James Bond stuff - it is real.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

Just as I said before.
They set-up some equipment next door and can see your screen and keystrokes on their equipment.

I mean from a technological standpoint, tell us how this is possible.

So if you are in your hotel room and open a document which you have stored on an encrypted disk image, then the spies next door can see what you are seeing on your screen.

This isn't James Bond stuff - it is real.

I highly doubt this, especially not without technological proof.

[tightsocks]

Check out the YT clips.
They show it happening.

Or skim the WP article.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

Check out the YT clips.
They show it happening.

Or skim the WP article.

From the Wikipedia article:

Compromising emanations consist of electrical, mechanical, or acoustical energy intentionally or by mishap unintentionally emitted by any number of sources within equipment/systems which process national security information

How does this coincide with what you are talking about?

[tightsocks]

I'm not an engineer or a physicist.

I have no idea how computers (or blenders) work.

I read the articles and watched the demonstrations. I conclude that it is possible to intercept signals that leak from electronics.

If you are able to conclude that the concept is not valid then that is fine with me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

I'm not an engineer or a physicist.

I have no idea how computers (or blenders) work.

I read the articles and watched the demonstrations. I conclude that it is possible to intercept signals that leak from electronics.

If you are able to conclude that the concept is not valid then that is fine with me.

It is possible to capture digital information, there are just particular politics, legalities, and technical realities that make it possible to logically determine where attention is being focused. For example, we do not have the resources to monitor every network packet that enters and leaves our networks, and even if we could we do not have legal authority to monitor international networks. Casting such a wide net would be like looking for something the size of a flea in the Pacific Ocean (if fleas could live underwater , so it is logical to say that this isn't done - it would be a waste of all sorts of resources, just as a for example.

Domestic and international computer spying involves a lot of cooperation with various service providers, governments, organizations, etc. I'm sure that what the government can do would surprise us all, but I just don't buy into this idea that the government has all of this elite technology that is beyond what is commercially available. IOW, there is no James Bond spy type technology, just a lot of police work.

Where I could be wrong here is with satellite spying technology, that is beyond my area of knowledge.

[jprint714]

Why this is a really fascinating discussion (and it is), are there any practical solutions you can offer for improved back up solutions given the concerns raised here? Thanks!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by jprint714 

Why this is a really fascinating discussion (and it is), are there any practical solutions you can offer for improved back up solutions given the concerns raised here? Thanks!

Are there any unanswered questions?

The object of the game is just to encrypt your network communications, if applicable, or else your backup volume, that's really about the extent of it.

One needs to be aware of the differences between different backup schemes, be comfortable with retrieving from their backup, but these are not security issues....

[cgc]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is possible to capture digital information, there are just particular politics, legalities, and technical realities that make it possible to logically determine where attention is being focused. For example, we do not have the resources to monitor every network packet that enters and leaves our networks, and even if we could we do not have legal authority to monitor international networks. Casting such a wide net would be like looking for something the size of a flea in the Pacific Ocean (if fleas could live underwater , so it is logical to say that this isn't done - it would be a waste of all sorts of resources, just as a for example.

Domestic and international computer spying involves a lot of cooperation with various service providers, governments, organizations, etc. I'm sure that what the government can do would surprise us all, but I just don't buy into this idea that the government has all of this elite technology that is beyond what is commercially available. IOW, there is no James Bond spy type technology, just a lot of police work.

Where I could be wrong here is with satellite spying technology, that is beyond my area of knowledge.

I would like to add that is it currently not legal for the USA to employ spy satellites or other national level resources to monitor citizens within the Unites States.

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I would like to add that is it currently not legal for the USA to employ spy satellites or other national level resources to monitor citizens within the Unites States.

My remarks are focused on spying on non American's located outside of the USA.

I'm also mostly talking about targeted spying on individuals or groups, not the type of vast data vacuuming that the various SIGINT agencies perform (although besson3c doesn't seem to believe that they actually do that type of mass collection. Perhaps you can inform him cgc...)

[cgc]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

My remarks are focused on spying on non American's located outside of the USA.

I'm also mostly talking about targeted spying on individuals or groups, not the type of vast data vacuuming that the various SIGINT agencies perform (although besson3c doesn't seem to believe that they actually do that type of mass collection. Perhaps you can inform him cgc...)

I only know what I mentioned (e.g. they can't legally spy on Americans in America...though there probably differing interpretations of "legal"). There was an interesting article on 20/20 or Dateline (TV shows) they mentioned the FBI's "Carnivore" program which has since been upgraded.

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I only know what I mentioned (e.g. they can't legally spy on Americans in America...though there probably differing interpretations of "legal"). There was an interesting article on 20/20 or Dateline (TV shows) they mentioned the FBI's "Carnivore" program which has since been upgraded.

Carnivore and it's successors are for policing, not intelligence gathering.
Totally different arena.

cgc, I thought you were involved in SIGINT?

[cgc]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

Carnivore and it's successors are for policing, not intelligence gathering.
Totally different arena.

cgc, I thought you were involved in SIGINT?

Who said that? Seems cool but I was involved in communications satellites, the GPS constellation, and some weather satellite support and also supported launching them so I've had to get some basic training on what we can't do with our satellite (e.g. no death rays, no surveilling the USA, etc). I supported the Hurricane Katrina/Rita relief effort and coordinated getting imagery of the scene to the "theater" but that's when I was told we couldn't do that. Luckily we got some commercial imagery instead.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

From a technological standpoint this is pure nonsense.

There are stories out there where people designed systems to wirelessly intercept/view someone's remote (CRT) computer screen, key strokes, etc. Read that ~12 years ago so don't know how feasible that is with the new computer technology.

[P]

That relied on reading the EM field variations from the CRT, so the tech was obsoleted when manufacturers began shielding their displays adequately. The keyboard was only ever "read" indirectly by interpreting what was on the screen. LCDs don't have the same sort of fields anyway, so I don't think that that tech works.

[tightsocks]

eavesdropping is possible on flat panel displays too

you can pick up signals from some distance. "I was able to eavesdrop certain laptops through three walls,"

New Scientist Technology Blog: Seeing through walls - New Scientist

Shielding of cables can prevent interception, but there is no indication that consumer level electronics have the type of shielding that is adequate to prevent interception.

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by cgc 

I supported the Hurricane Katrina/Rita relief effort and coordinated getting imagery of the scene to the "theater" but that's when I was told we couldn't do that. Luckily we got some commercial imagery instead.

So, you had non-commercial IMINT of the USA?

[besson3c]

Let me backpedal... I might be wrong about the interception being nonsense if it is possible with that EM field variation stuff, but I'll stick to that it is impossible with internet/network based technologies without multiple layers of failure.

[P]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

New Scientist Technology Blog: Seeing through walls - New Scientist

Shielding of cables can prevent interception, but there is no indication that consumer level electronics have the type of shielding that is adequate to prevent interception.

Shielding such as an entire computer body of highly conductive aluminum, in effect creating a Faraday cage with one side open (and one hole for the antenna)? I think I've seen that somewhere... Doesn't mean it's not possible, but it ought to be harder than for a laptop with a plastic case.

Also: Modern Macs use DisplayPort packet data for internal signalling, while older laptops use LVDS. That may affect things.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

So, you had non-commercial IMINT of the USA?

What are you talking about...we bought photos of the flooded areas from some company cuz there were no other sources.

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by cgc 

What are you talking about...we bought photos of the flooded areas from some company cuz there were no other sources.

OK, I thought you were saying that your agency had images but couldn't release them because of restrictions.
Anyway...
Glad the image eventually got to the right place, otherwise Katrina could have been a real disaster...

[cgc]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

...Glad the image eventually got to the right place, otherwise Katrina could have been a real disaster...

I'm just glad I wasn't part of the problem with the timeliness of the response. Was a real shame what happened there...believe me, those of us at the worker bee level did our best and worked long hours. It made a difference but bureaucratic red tape FUBARed the situation (as usual, eh).

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's rather tinfoil hatty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/te...espionage.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/su...-on-leaks.html

[Eug]

What files does SuperDuper! exclude?

I am backing up my data drive with SuperDuper! because for some strange reason Disk Utility keeps telling me I don't have enough space on my empty backup drive, which has 100+ GB more than I need.

Anyways, I note that SuperDuper! is excluding the occasional file. Out of 8000+ files evaluated so far, it's copied all but 15. However, in terms of actual GB copied, the values are the same between evaluated vs. copied.

So, what is it excluding? Remember, this is a data drive, not a boot drive.

As for a boot drive, what does it exclude besides the swap disk and temp files?

BTW, in case you're wondering, I already have a Time Machine backup. This is a secondary backup. I always backup my boot and data drives by two different methods. Time Machine on an ongoing basis, and drive clones every few weeks.