Don't know. But the circuitry installed sounds like it was for routing to other peers, not for routing into the room. The Narus in the room could easily have been a prototype or a version 1.0. If you think you can't get permission or get around public outcry why wouldn't you have set up a camp X-ray version? The fact that they eventually did (RAHS) makes it seem plausible.

RAHS = Risk Assessment and Horizontal Scanning system

It's the TIA implementation done by the Singapore government.

BTW, the Narus in 2003-4 was listed as handling realtime 10 billion records a day, it reads packets off the optical stream directly. If a record were a megabyte, that would be a terabit system. I don't know what a record is, if it were just an email it would be much smaller, if it were a web page, possibly larger.

Don't know. The whole splitter thing seems optical, as far as I can tell, but I'm not an optical hardware person. You can look at the plans at

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6//att_klein_wired.pdf

If it were truly all optical, it would get a piece of everything.

The Narus system looks at the stream without other routers, in real time. The STA stands for Semantic Traffic Analysis. It does datamining with an optical input.

Believe it or not, these guys don't really want to look at everything, they are looking at everything so they can figure out how to look at only the good stuff. What should worry civil libertarians isn't when they are looking at all of it, but when they decide they have found the 6W's (who, what, when, where, why, how) and start looking at targets. Without oversight, we don't know why someone is a target, or whether they have been looked at.

According to Klein, the SF point is Mae West, there is another called Mae East in Virginia, all traffic goes through them. He stated that they were literally looking at the entire internet.

Yesterday, I wrote to my congressman asking that proceedings be started to impeach Messrs. Gonzales, Cheney, and Bush. I got back a note from him saying that John Conyers had introduced H.R. 635 to form a select committee to investigate, modeled on Sam Ervin's committee. It's mandate would currently to look into misrepresentations leading to the war in Iraq, torture and detention, and leaking classified data, but they might expand it to the wiretapping issues. My congressman has cosponsored.

Am I living in Indigo-land, or is there progress?

I read that in Clarke too. But since I have to do IHL education and training year in and year out, can I just make a comment?

I think the world of Richard Clarke, but in that passage, he doesn't seem to know what extraordinary rendition is. Rendition is taking a prisoner and sending the prisoner to another country. That would be ordinary rendition, which is usually called extradition. Extraordinary rendition is rendition for the purposes of violating the prisoner's rights under international humanitarian law (IHL, the Geneva Conventions), usually by rendering the prisoner to a country that will torture them. "Snatching" someone is probably kidnapping in the country in which it is done, but it isn't, by itself, extraordinary rendition. What the Bush people have done, for instance with Mahar, was extraordinary rendition. But what Clarke described, wasn't. Not without the mistreatment in the country of destination. It is still possible that it was done under Clinton, but that isn't it.