First, I must immediately question the informativeness of anyone who thinks Washington DC is located in Maryland. Second, pointing out addresses of major AT&T PoPs is useless. Do carriers (still) mirror traffic to intelligence agencies? Most likely. However, this makes it sound like AT&T and the NSA have dedicated entire buildings for this purpose, which is ridiculous. Complete sensationalism.
You've misread the map by assuming "Maryland" was a state label, when evidence within the same map clearly indicates it is not. "Northern California" and "Southern California" are not states. Instead, they are areas, and Washington D.C. is in the area of Maryland.
This is ridiculous, but I'll play along. California absolutely is a state. Further defining the location of a city in a state does not really explain how Washington DC ends up being classified as part of Maryland. Washington DC is not part of the state Maryland. There is also no area (I assume by "area" you mean metro area or region) that is commonly defined as Maryland. Washington DC is part of the DC metropolitan area or "DMV," however it is in no way part of Maryland anymore than New York city is part of New Jersey.
I was simply pointing out a minor (albeit, comical) factual error that immediately made me question the legitimacy of the rest of the article.
Perhaps you shouldn't discount the entire content of the article based on what could be perceived as a minor mistake. There's quite a bit of corroborating material in regards to the core theme of the Intercept piece (AT&T/NSA collaboration); for example, the engineer who's quoted in the Intercept article has been speaking out about NSA surveillance for several years. He's been referenced in similar articles in various publications going back to at leat 2007. The San Francisco address in the article was Mark Klein's former workplace and he ostensibly witnessed fiber splitting equipment being installed for use by government agencies. So if we are to take him at his word, then his account certainly lends credence to the Intercept article.
Absolutely. I actually feel like pointing out the minor mistake distracted from my actual point. As others have pointed out in the past few hours, this article seems to do little more than point out where the NSA is fiber tapping on AT&T's network. This hardly seems like breaking news to me. The exposure of PRISM many years ago put the activity in the public eye.
To me, it seems like this article is sensationalizing a practice most were aware of already. I suppose it is mildly interesting to highlight a bunch of locations where it may be happening, but certainly not breaking news.
I find it hard to believe that many would use SW RAID with Postgres in production, especially under load conditions that were tested for here. I have seen little hope for performant SW RAID on Linux in the past twenty years. It would be interesting to see the same tests run using stable HW RAID of some sort (preferably, with SSDs)
If you want the ability to scrub (in such a way that detects errors over the whole storage stack), you must sacrifice hardware raid. You must also pay the fletcher/sha256 tax.
ZFS enthusiasts advocate that critical data absolutely requires those sacrifices. I'm inclined to agree.
