Slashdot Mirror
Carnivore To Die?
Mr_CFG writes "Rep. Dick Armey is looking to tighten FBI funding in order to starve Carnivore, and is asking AG Ashcroft to review the Constitutional questions surrounding
the program" Rep Armey raises a good point, citing the recent Supreme Court decision regarding high tech survellaince, strongly limiting the government's ability to monitor things inside the home.
I am not willing to sacrifice privacy for security, just as most americans are not willing to.
You seem to think that *if* the fbi knows, you are somehow protected, LOL
The fact of the matter is, somebody new that there was going to be a bomb at oklahoma city, as there was a bomb squad hovering around the fbi office before the cow pies exploded; if they won't protect their own, what makes you think they will protect you?
Regardless, you can return your refund for precisely that:
Me, I've got better things to spend my refund on, like brewing equipment. :-)
I think is why this country really needs a middle ground party. You could see it during the elections how people were very content with the state of the union. Many didn't want the progressiveness of one party or the conservatism of the other, yet what choice did they have. The population as a whole was sitting right at the center, and from a statistic point of view it made perfect sense that this translated to a dead 50-50 split. However we live in a country where political viewpoints are binary, so a slight bit of noise tossed us full throttle into republican mode. That in control theory is called an unstable bang-bang system. We lack shades of gray, and unfortunately this election only forces both sides to take up their ideals even more fanatically. I'm not talking about a libertian party, or a green party. I'm talking about a "we're content" party that doesn't pass major laws (unless the situation warrants it), just keeps the day-to-day government running.
-- Making computers see, hear, and think... http://www.componica.com/
This is called the "King George Test" and is one of the ways, including reading the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, of knowing what the people who wrote the Constitution meant. In other words, you do not have to get on any slippery slopes just to deal with new technology.
I wrote parts of this stuff
The Constitution is addressed to the government, and specifies what the government may not do. The government does not have the same rights as the people, by design. Everything the government is not allowed to regulate is allowed. (Hahaha! Which shows how far we have strayed.)
I wrote parts of this stuff
Yesterday Bush called Africa a nation. On Tuesday he mispronounced the name of the leader of Spain. I'm not too surprised if he mispronounced nuclear. Maybe it's one of his pet names for a pet project. Now he wants to give Spain access to Echelon so it can spy on its own people. We know why Aznar was smiling.
Bwwwwaaaaa ha ha ha ha he he ha ha ha
(my cisco class laughs out loud)
He he snarf lol ha ha ha
Mod this guy up! this is great stuff. Bye bye republicans
he he he he...
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
that the Constitutional restrictions apply until the courts decide otherwise.
Meaning, when a new communication medium is introduced, the First Ammendment statement that Congress will make no law abridging freedom of speech or press on that meidum automatically applies.
And when a new surveilance method is introduced, then the fourth ammendment restriction against search and seizure automatically applies until a court decides that the search method is reasonable. I imply here that someone not related to the FBI should have the chance to make their case that the search is unreasonable, if they so believe.
The first ammendment already works that way, essentially. The net was free, until people started trying to censor it.
But if this applied to search methods, it would a) give us the public a chance to hear about these new methods and b) make the default be to protect our privacy, rather than to allow our privacy be invaded and perhaps later having some recourse if it was decided the search was unreasonable.
I especially like part b. If you get nailed by some new surveilance method, by the time you get your day in court to contest the findings, you're already screwed.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hey numbbot - the FBI works in this country on domestic and counterterrorism and the last terrorist wasn't some goat humping raghead. He was ummm...yeah a white american male. Does anyone see a correlation between Ashcroft and some relaxation on the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus, etc. in an attempt to restart the Christian Identity movement?
Well I do - so before you go all "it's muthfukin' Clinton's fault" remember who the Justice Department represents...
It will have no more funding, so it will just disappear into thin air. Oh good, and I was getting worried that we were all being watched.
;-)
This announcement is as good as the fact that americans don't build chem/bio/nuclear weapons anymore.
-Vic
While for a long time I've agreed with John Q. Slashdotuser that Carnivore is an invasion of privacy and the like, I've recently changed my view.
I work for a medium-sized ISP. Not too long ago, we had a server that was broken into and used for launching DDOS attacks, despite being well-maintained with security patches and intrusion detection systems. While rummaging through the system after the break-in was detected, the logs pointed to a couple other ISPs, as would be expected.
When I went to contact the other providers, one of them responded *much* quicker than usual for a major hosting company. We exchanged six emails in the course of an hour regarding the specifics of the system compromise, and shortly thereafter I received a call from our boys in the bureau.
It turns out that there had been a carnivore system at the other provider watching specifically for the perpetrator of the attack on our server. The traffic that was captured there helped diagnose the breakins (along with many others).
In talking with the agent, I *quickly* realized that this isn't used for "black helicopter" surveillance. They don't give a flip about the data they accidentally collect that has your credit card number paying for that adult website and they don't care about that email you sent to your friend about the meeting. If anything, the stuff that is accidentally captured is taking up disk space where REAL forensic data could be.
Most of the FBI people who deal with carnivore aren't out to find anyone who's committing a crime. They're not out to invade the privacy of internet users. They're people with computer and networking backgrounds like you or me and they dig through the electronic clues to provide reports to higher-ups that are clueless about the technology.
It's a good thing. Let's try to look at both sides.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
However, I dont really think that it is reasonable to expect privacy when browsing on the Internet
Let's see... what else is not private? How about calling your doctor? The phone network is a "public place", by your reasoning. Sure, let's just have the phone company record your conversations and publish the statistics to interested parties.... Do ISPs do this now? Yes, but I expect that to last until the first law suit that cripples an ISP because they sold what ammounts to medical information to the wrong party. Americans are very sensitive to their tenuous right to privacy, and the trigger is usually violence against women or medical information.
My stepfather has worked with Carnivore(he is a high ranking federal law enforcement agent) and when we talked about the Carnivore system he said that it is much harder to get a warrent for it or for taking a computer than it is to get warrents for searching more traditional things.
Of course, it's harder now; they're working out the ground-rules. However, if attitudes like yours prevailed, I would expect it to be much easier within the next few years. Thankfully, many judges take the long view, and such invasions will likely be curtailed over the next few years.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
"For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers..."
I agree with you here. However, I'm not sure it illustrates your point. The fact that the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on free speech and that that logically applies to all media doesn't mean that another prohibition should be dropped when new methods arise. (I realize you didn't say that; I'm just making the point that both are restrictions on government authority and that there should be no extension of that autority by default.)
I think your argument supports the principle of 'general reasonableness', by which I mean reasonable to a substantial majority of the people. I would argue that modern, high-tech surveillance methods are not both understood and expected by most people, thereby making them unreasonable by the intent of the Fourth Amendment.
The real intent of my post was to make the point that if such searches can be quietly implemented before their widespread public consideration, then they will seem much more 'reasonable' after they become common. Perhaps if we quickly implemented new punishment methods, they would no longer be 'unusual punishments' by the time the public considered them an issue. Neat trick, if you can get away with it. Unfortunately, I was sloppy in making that point in my original post.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
If we incrementally allow more and more intrusive searches, eventually they will come to seem more 'reasonable'.
None of these high-tech methods of spying on citizens were available at the time the Bill of Rights were written. That, alone, should be enough to disqualify them as unreasonable since they were certainly not considered 'reasonable' -- or even considered at all -- in the language of the document.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Given the FBI's record (*cough*COINTELPRO*cough*), that is the prudent assumption.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Where is the "-1, Kook" option? "Troll" doesn't really cover this one....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I think the expectectation and reasonableness rise in proportion to the amount of government probing into our lives. If the government and companies weren't so intent on gathering so much info on us, and monitoring all of our activity, and even checking our thoughts, we wouldn't be so obsessed with privacy.
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
So, if the Feebs GPL Carnivore, or assert that packet sniffers are freely available (Linux on a laptop and a promiscuous card!) to the general public...
(Yeah, I think Carnivore, by virtue of its design requirement that it be hooked up to the ISP, doesn't fall into "generally-available", falls under the recent Supreme Court ruling, and should therefore require a warrant before use. But I'm playing Devil's Advocate here...)
Huh?
It's a packet sniffer. But you have to have physical access to the ISP's datacenter to use it.
The real question (arguably unanswered) is whether or not the part of your TCP/IP connection between your home and the first router away from your ISP constitutes part of your home.
The argument can be made that it does - they could just wiretap you. But they don't, choosing to use the ISP's outbound pipe to wiretap everyone and (so they tell us :) then throw away the data from everyone but you. They do this for the sake of convenience (It's arguably harder to wiretap a cablemodem. Or optical fiber to the home. Or line-of-sight laser to the home...).
That is, Carnivore is just an easy way (using means not available to the general public, like sitting down in an ISP's datacenter) of getting access to your data stream (which is information they would not otherwise be able to gain without having to) wiretap you (which would typically require physical access to your property or the wires/cables/lasers/EM-fields connecting thereto or emanating therefrom).
I don't know how far that'd fly in court, but it sounds like a non-frivolous argument using the recent SCOTUS ruling as precedent. I don't know how they'd rule, but I'd think the Justices would have to think about it for a while before ruling either way.
"The Founding Fathers couldn't have predicted the UZI, which lets you shoot 30 rounds!"
s/UZI/Internet s/shoot 30 rounds/put your dangerous crackpot opinions in front of 1 billion people
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Exactly one country has ratified Kyoto, Romania. If it's so vital to the future of the planet, why are you waiting around for the U.S.? Just because the Senate unanimously rejected it doesn't mean other countries can't approve it.
The ABM treaty was made with the Soviet Union. Consulting a current map, I see no such entity. I actually don't support Bush's missile defense program, because it will almost certainly turn into pork barrel programs with little or no results, but the ABM treaty is a non-issue.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
It's sad that the obvious needs to be stated, but governments are responsible for at least 1000 times more crimes than all terrorists and kidnappers put together.
The FBI has a long history of using it's information for blackmail, and of killing political opponent and other inconvenient people.
According to the article 'critics have charged' this.
This kind of automatically assumes malevolence and deceit on the side of the FBI. They have said it will not. They had independent reviewers look at it who said as much. Yeah, I know they weren't quite independent (blah blah blah).
The crux of the matter is that the FBI cannot use information in court garnered without a proper warrant. If they can't use it in court, why are they collecting it? To post on the internet? Because they give it to the CIA so that they'll kill us? To go in a secret government database? To determine who goes in 'Who's Who Among Email Senders'? Come on.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
However, I attribute this to government-bureaucracy (sp?) type stuff, not to purposeful FBI wrongdoing. Government contracts are a pain, and you can't just jump in if you don't know what you're doing. Likewise, it's likely that the reviewing team chosen would have people that worked with the government in their team. It's not malevolence ... just domain knowledge.
Living near D.C., and knowing many people that work for the government, I *do* trust them.
Except for that old hanlon's razor thing ;)
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The supreme court decision did not say thermal imaging could not be used ... it only said a warrant would be required.
Protections against misuse of carnivore would be good.
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore. I'm surprised to see such technological illiteracy on /. but I have learned to lower my expectations over the last couple of years.
The Supreme Court decision concerns surveillance of an intrusive nature that gives police access to information they would not otherwise have been able to gain without physical access. Carnivore has absolutely nothing to do with such kinds of surveillance. Carnivore is nothing more than a glorified packet sniffer.
As such, it picks up (pursuant to lawfully obtained search warrants) information that is sent OUTSIDE any area that could be reasonably considered private. When you send e-mail or browse the Web, you are submitting information on a public network, and as such, police are perfectly entitled to perform surveillance there, provided they have the appropriate judicial permission (in the form of a warrant).
That notion, quite frankly, scares the living hell out of me. The fact that Americans won't even discuss incidents in which their own government acted like tyrannical thugs shows how easy it would be for them to do it again.
We must not hesitate to discuss these matters. We shouldn't sweep Ruby Ridge, Elian, or any of those under the rug any more than we should ignorethe bad actions of Phillip Morris or Microsoft. Only by exposing and working against injustice can we get anywhere.
Amendment IV
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.
Should the 4th ammendment and definition of privacy not satisfy you, lets look at our magic bullet...
Amendment IX
Just because a right isn't listed in the constitution does not mean said right may be taken away.
Deal with it. We have a right to privacy.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." --Voltaire
http://www.animalvoice.com/carnivore_preservation_ trust.htm
As you cling to the arbitrary notion of privacy, you're doing little more than empowering men to rape and torture women.
Since you beleive this, you need to put up or shutup, put up webcams in your bathrooms and bedrooms, better yet every room in your house and stream it to a website, I will be waiting for you to post the URL here on Slashdot.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Eliminating carnivore would make the FBI less effective. Unless you would like more terrorists and kidnappers running around.
"Those who would trade their essential Liberty for a perceived temporary Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security." --Benjamin Franklin.
50% + 1? In that case, you have a pure democracy, with the risks that go with it. A bare majority can use the full force of government to destroy the rights of the minority.
Some elite group of people? Choose your poison: dictatorship, aristocracy, technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever other kind of "cracy" scheme suits you. In any case, the ones in power may destroy the rights of others at a whim.
How about a consensus, say 90% agreement? If you can get that, you can easily amend the Constitution to make it say whatever you want.
The US Founders were not superhumans, but they showed enough wisdom to set up a limited federal government, with checks and balances. They also built in an amendment process to allow the document to change over time, but made that process hard enough that changes would hopefully be carefully considered.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
No, I block that technology by wearing a suit made of aluminum foil! *grin*
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers. (In practice, we have let them get by with fudging somewhat for broadcasters, on the theory that the airwaves are a public resource. Shame on us.)
Anyway, we can't automatically claim the Fourth Amendment protects against high-tech surveillance because the authors didn't know about it. Instead, we have to make our arguments based on the meaning of the amendment, as others have done on this thread and previous ones. If the situation has changes so much that we cannot apply the meaning of the amendment any more (or if the SCOTUS applies the meaning foolishly), then it is time to consider amending the Constitution again.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
They've already introduced the idea that it CAN be done, people will become numb to the idea. After a couple more outrageous incidents of invasion of privacy, the feds will then institute a 'reasonable' searching technique.
After the people are used to these extreme measures, the 'reasonable' ones will seem mild and unobtrusive in comparison. The only problem is they would bring immediate picketing and demonstrations 10 years ago, but today's society is so used to having no backing for the constitution that they're used to flat out ignoring it for the most part and accepting what is told them by the news that it may not even be looked at crosseyed.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Since most people come equipped with a nose as a standard option, police could use a nose to detect things.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I for one am sick of the bullshit on /. about "Your Rights Online" posts talking about how evil corporate "rights violations" are when the government is doing worse. The corporations can't bloody well wiretap you legally unless (well the telecoms might, but they have nothing to gain by screwing your privacy since their monopoly status in their regions is contingent on playing nice guy) their people want to be sent to prison.
/.ers say a lot about corporations buying laws, but the simple fact is that money talks. Corporations have tons of it, and we don't. Hence, they get the laws they want, and the consumer gets screwed.
What about all the corporations that, through such things as large campaign contributions, are all but purchasing the government? I know
My point is this: You seem to be implying that there is no connection whatsoever between corporations and the government. However, that couldn't be any further from the truth.
---
DOOR!!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
This just means that the project will get turned over to the NSA or the CIA and there won't be any accountibility anymore.
---
Hammer of Truth
Doesn't everyone know that Stanley Jobson put a virus in the Carnivore program and it's going to take 2 years to get back on schedule?? We don't need to worry about for a long time now.
... he was the hacker in Swordfish played by Hugh Jackman ... just go watch the movie)
(for those who don't get out much
I am
Personally, I like people that make up words as it shows a sign of creativity. I'd rather have someone in office who mixes up words sometimes and is somewhat creative, than yet another bland politician type.
George W. Bush, the world's oldest script kiddie.
Heh, that's a good one. I'll need to run it past my wife next time she asks me for a few minutes of solitude in the bathroom...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
There has ALWAYS been a reasonable assurance of privacy in human affairs. This comes from the simple fact that people simply cannot know everything that is going on to everyone else. If you live in a world where it is fundamentally unlikely that other people know what is going on in your life, than you have a reasonable assurance of privacy. Call it ignorance if you like, but it has always existed, and people have grown ( I might go so far as to say evolved ) to depend upon it.
Communications is used by all social animals to counteract this inherent social ignorance. As communications technology increases our abilities to share information, it must naturally erode that reasonable sense of privacy.
At one point it was possible to simply travel a few dozen miles to another town and one could recreate oneself with a totally new identity and life. As communications and transportation technology has made it easier to travel and communicate, and effectively made the world "smaller", one must travel further and further to gain that kind of anonymity that was once very simple.
You also say that privacy is merely a social way of hiding the abuse of men upon women. This is a very simplistic view of the matter IMHO. But it is a more specific rephrasing of the general notion that privacy is only used to conceal criminal or improper deeds, that only those with something to hide need privacy.
This notion is false because it is based upon two false assumptions. Firstly it assumes that privacy is defense against the general public, which is not at all true - privacy is mainly a defense against small groups of individuals, whether they be neighbours or the police, or anyone else. Very few people worry about having their homes invaded by a camera crew from CNN for live broadcast, but it might be a very real worry that a neighbour, or the police, or that someone with a grudge might invade their homes.
Secondly it assumes that all private actions are going to be treated as fairly in the eyes of anyone who observes them. This is plainly false. For every opportunity to use privacy to hide criminal or improper behaviour there is also an opportunity to use a lack of privacy to falsely or improperly accuse someone of such an activity. What you might consider to be perfectly acceptable behaviour in private, another person could think of as being totally unacceptable, and vice-versa.
As the famous Franklin / Jefferson quote says:
"he who sacrifices freedom for security will neither have, nor deserver either" ( or something along those lines )
Stop and think for a moment about a society where everyone is comfortable in their sense of privacy and private security, compared to one in which everyone is in fear of constantly being watched. Which society is really the more secure? Naturally it is the first. Social fear, and fear for ones person, whether it be physical or not, is definitely one of the quickest routes to acts of violence. Totalitarian states are much more prone to social unrest and violent upheaval than are democratic ones.
Claiming that privacy is a morally bankrupt concept created by artifical means belies a huge misunderstanding on your part of human nature. Privacy is one of the most morally important institutions that we have - and it is related strongly to the respect for individuals which would IMHO be exactly what a society needs more of to prevent violence against women, not less. Removing the respect for privacy from public life does not give any more security, but rather simply replaces one insecurity with another, and adds to the mix increased tension and unease which can only lead to more problems, not less.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Right and wrong. The Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. It sounds like an invitation for the Supreme court to go discover new rights, but as far as I know they didn't until the 1950's in a case involving a Massachusetts law against contraceptives. The justices decided that this law violated some unenumerated right, which they called the "right to privacy", but which is more accurately described as "the right to control your own body." That is, they've applied it to contraceptives and abortion, but in regards to wiretapping and other snooping, their decisions have been based on the 4th Amendment (Unreasonable search and seizure), not the 9th.
The application of the 4th Amendment when only electrons are "seized" has always made some strict constructionists uncomfortable. So it is possible that with a few more justices who are unwilling to go beyond the actual words in the Constitution, the gov't would be free to wiretap at will, look through the walls of your house with infrared, and order fat people to go on a diet. So I would like to see two amendments specifically codifying a true right to privacy (no snooping without a warrant), and the right to control your own body (which would also invalidate drug laws and many of the FDA's powers).
With all due respect, people do not desire a curtain so that they may only commit crimes. Not all men beat their wives. Not all men rape their wives. And additionally, not all people grown weed in their house.
I, for one, have a very strong desire for privacy--whether "artificial" as you call it or otherwise. No one needs to see me make love to my wife (no, it's not rape since she always consents). No one needs to see that I can't last five minutes. And no one needs to know I've got a hideous birthmark on my left cheek. There is just no reason for you, the government, or anyone else to see those things.
Similarly, there is absolutely no reason for anyone--government or not--to watch me doing legal things in my house. I have guns--but that doesn't give anyone the right to inspect them on demand (unless you want to merely ascertain the pain that occurs when one is shot). I also have DVDs and computers--but that also does not give anyone the right to inspect my computers to determine if I'm copying the DVDs to them (I'm not).
The entire fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an artifical curtain. Not every government has such a constitutionally given right. This right was not given to early colonists, and was one of those issues that forced our revolution. We all need to respect this right; whether you feel that your life should be broadcast on television 24-hours-a-day or not.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
So Carnivore may only be used on individuals. Perhaps you can explain then why the software needs to have the functionality to log entire blocks of IP addresses? You shouldn't even need functionality like that to snoop individuals.
And why keep the workings of Carnivore so secret it is only being used in ways that are legal? What, exactly, have they got to hide?
What about the fact that in order to use the Carnivore system at all, you need Administrator priviledges on the machine? That means that whoever is sitting at the console can do WHATEVER THEY WANT, regardless of whether or not a court warrant has been issued.
Sorry, too many flaws, too much just doesn't add up. Who's watching the watchers? Carnivore should die. I don't believe for a second that its going to (I wouldn't believe them if they did claim that they dismantled the system, the FBI is not about to give up that much power so easily), but for the sake of freedom, it should be killed.
It's interesting to see Dick taking the strategy of cutting FBI funding to kill off carnivore so soon after the FBI went to the hill claiming that the reason NIPC was not effective at preventing computer crime is that they need more money.
--
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Musashi
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
How Carnivore really works shows what can be intercepted!
The supreme court ruling on thermal imaging doesn't apply here because by the time Carnivore gets your email, it isn't in your house anymore. Combine that with the "email is like a postcard, a non-encrypted, non-sealed letter with no expectation of privacy" theory and you have a pretty compelling argument. A shame, too. It's so rare we see Armey doing something useful, or even trying to.
I'm the stranger...posting to
That's nuculer, buddy. Remember who we have in the White House now.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush