Slashdot Mirror
Keyloggers Now Classified Technology
general_re writes: "The New York Times (free reg required blah blah blah) is reporting that the Department of Justice is still refusing to turn over details of how the keystroke loggers used against Nicky Scarfo worked, claiming that revealing how it works "would render it useless in future investigations" as well as claiming that it is classified information. Nevermind that this also prevents his lawyers from evaluating or attacking the credibility or accuracy of the evidence arrayed against him. One interesting question raised is whether it's always been classified, or if they're retroactively classifying it in order to avoid revealing how they work."
Comrades, welcome to the CCCUSA.
Big Brother is watching.
We must continue to stand up for ourselves or the government is really gonna run us over with all this BS
Before we know it, there could be keyloggers for everyone to download!
I believe the same to be true of the Carnivore system, even though I readily defend its use as legitimate.
What if they classified the tape and tape recorder they used to tape a conversation - no one would be able to check the tape to see if it was or could have been altered!
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
if they refuse to disclose their method for gathering their evidence, it should be declared inadmissible.
But then again, IANAL.
Just replace the "www" in the link with "archive".
For this link, it is
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/technolog
It
a) Saves all the "No reg link" posts, and
b) Saves all the "Anonymous login" posts, and
c) just makes the world a better place in general.
Thanks!
It logs keystrokes, so that they can later tell exactly what you were typing at the time!
Just link to the damn archives url :)
/ 25CODE.html
http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/technology
It sounds like the FBI has built upon existing key logging technology. I imagine those are patented, right? So distribute that information. If it's similar enough, then the same methods to defeat it would work against the FBI's stuff. This what the FBI is claminig they are trying to avoid by releasing details.
Of course, this information should only be used to prevent unscrupulous business competitors from using key logging against you ;-). Don't use it to cover up a crime, like reading and encrypted e-book.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
technology ? If the DoJ won't share, I think "we the people" should make every effort to see that any knowledge we have is made available. Someone had to write this for them.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
What does your constitution say about this? What are they allowed to do to you in this sense?
Furthermore I think they *must* release their technology that they used, to give him a fair chance. Or am I wrong here?
The innaresting thing to me is that the defense is trying to play the "keylogger = wiretap" card, and therefore invalidate the evidence because it wasn't acquired under the corrent warrent.
Now, why would the Feds not want to disclose the mechanism of their keylogger? Either it's typical spook selfishness OR they think that doing so would strengthen the defense's argument. I havn't looked at the actual details of the argument the defense is making, so it's hard to tell if this is part of the motivation for the "it's classified" song and dance.
On the one hand, perhaphs they just don't want people knowing how the FBI keylogger works as opposed to all the others. Maybe because, shame shame, it's the same as the market variety.
But maybe it interfaces automagically with some external snooping device. That would be both something they'd rather not let people know about AND something that would give the defense the winning argument in the court case.
(start carnivore paranoia ranting... now)
Howard Dean for president
someone posted this about a year ago:
login: slashdot2000
pass: slashdot2000
let it save the cookie and never look back
xxx straight edge xxx
I don't get it. What about programs like Last Resort? Are they classified now?
If refusing is helping catching bad guys, I'm all for it.
The keystrokes optained where used to recover the passwords that protected the valuable data. So the password doesn't need to count as evidence, only the data that was recovered. Their keystroke logger could have been a hidden camera, for all we know, or they simply guessed the pass phrase and got lucky.
Revealing that they guessed the password (Don Corleone's daughter's birthday) could put further use in jeopardy, since criminals would actually start to use *clever* passwords!
In Animal House it was a joke. For the feds it's becoming a habit. This is an outrage -- but I don't think it will hold up in court. When you present evidence like this, you have to establish its reliability. And "Trust US' isn't good enough.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Information is not classified after it has been born unclassified. It must be born classified as part of a classified project.
I also doubt the judge possesses the clearance required to evaluate it himself, so no one may be able to evaluate it's accuracy.
. . .
Must make this short (as there's a god long debate behind what follows) but this would make inadmissable any collected evidence in a UK court.
This would be because there is then no person or other body of evidence available to question regards veracity.
Evidence rules here very tough, and the case would be almost immediately thrown out.
This is tantamount to claiming the Ivisible Man as witness and the prosecutor or plaintiff claiming they cannot bring him for cross examination because they cannot find him.
The anaology is the same, if something cannot be shown to court, it may not bear witness.
This is the first basic rule of civilisation and law over hearsay, rumour and superstition.
Invoking a national security law normally used in highly publicized espionage cases, the Justice Department told a federal judge on Thursday that it would not publicly reveal the details of the "key logger" system used to gather evidence in the gambling and loansharking trial of Nicodemo S. Scarfo Jr.
The technology behind the key logger, which was developed by the F.B.I. but is similar to readily available commercial products, has become a central issue in the case against Mr. Scarfo. But, privacy experts say, the technology is also a new disturbance to the delicate balance between the privacy rights of citizens and the growing power of technology to help government invade privacy.
In the Scarfo case, F.B.I. agents installed the monitoring technology, which records keystrokes, on Mr. Scarfo's personal computer under a court-authorized search warrant. Mr. Scarfo's lawyers have argued that the technology resembles a wiretap, and that using the logger without going through the relatively stringent requirements of a full wiretap order may have violated Mr. Scarfo's constitutional rights. But they say that they cannot know for sure unless they know how the logger works.
Judge Nicholas H. Politan of the United States District Court in Newark agreed with Mr. Scarfo's lawyers and on Aug. 7 ordered the government to produce further information about the technology by Aug. 31. The judge also ruled that the government could file a memorandum before then as to why it could not comply. It was that memorandum that was filed on Thursday.
Lawyers directly involved in both sides of the case are under an order not to discuss it, and could not comment.
The government has previously argued that the technology is classified, but until the new filings, it had not officially invoked the Classified Information Procedure Act, which is normally used to prevent criminal defendants like Robert P. Hanssen, the accused spy, from revealing government secrets in open court.
Ronald D. Wigler, an assistant United States attorney, said in court filings on Thursday that the government was seeking to invoke the act in the Scarfo case. The government said it had not withheld any information from Mr. Scarfo that might be helpful in his attempts to get the evidence gathered by the key-logger system rejected.
Revealing the inner workings of the technology, Mr. Wigler has argued, would render it useless in future investigations. He offered instead to provide an "unclassified summary statement" that could be reviewed by Mr. Scarfo's lawyers and "a more complete description" of the technology for the judge's eyes only.
Mr. Scarfo is the son of the imprisoned mob boss Nicodemo S. (Little Nicky) Scarfo Sr. The key logger captured the password that the younger Mr. Scarfo is accused of having used with a popular encryption program to scramble and unscramble records of gambling and loansharking operations.
Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department lawyer who was involved in several cases using the Classified Information Procedures Act, said that the government's use of the law was surprising.
"This is using an elephant gun to swat a fly," he said.
He also said the government's action raised more questions than it answered. Under the law, for example, the government is required to show that it classified the technology in question properly, and did so before it was used in the investigation. "Simply saying `it's classified' is not enough," he said. The government has not yet publicly offered the proof that Mr. Rasch described.
Mr. Rasch, who has consulted with civil liberties groups that are following the case, said that absent such proof, it could be argued that the government had invoked the law as a legal maneuver. If the government classified the technology after the fact, he said: "That would be disingenuous. That would be unconscionable."
David Sobel, the general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a policy and advocacy group in Washington, said, "The government elected to use this technique, and should not now attempt to hide its details under the guise of national security."
He added: "It raises very basic questions of accountability. The suggestion that the use of high-tech law enforcement investigative techniques should result in a departure from our tradition of open judicial proceedings is very troubling."
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
What is the name of the song featured in the most recent Starburst commercial? I remember it from the 80's but I dont remember the band or the name of the song.
What's the name DAMMMIT!
Eres puto...soy cabron...
Presumably, at least, the "classified the technology in question properly" is to ensure that there's actually something that deserves real protection, not just a lame attempt to keep it unaccountable and unquestionable under the mantle of National Security. It also appears to be pretty clear that the classification has to predate the claims against it. If they're trying to classify it retroactively to avoid accountability, their attempt is likely to blow up in their face.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Was there a keylogger to begin with?
Perhaps they just handed over the encrypted data to the NSA who promptly cracked it. Now, how do you use this in court without revealing that it was NSAs monster cracker that did all the work.
You invent a keylogger!
The standard the court promulgated is as follows: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presump-tively unreasonable without a warrant.
The slip opinion (99-8508) is available in pdf format
Although the government did have a warrent to search thus supects home in this case, they did not have permission to wiretap. Since the bug could concievably be used to wiretap, the government has the responsibility to provide evidence that the device did not go beyond the scope of the existing warrant.
Kyllo suggests that, since the device's capabilities are secret, such a device is presumptively not in public use, and requires the most expansive of warrents for legal use. Since the feds did not have a wiretap warrent, and such a device could be used for such activity, the placement of the device is illegal. (IANAL)
Don't feel like register at NYT
So I guess this Scarfo was working with the mafia, am I correct? what did he do? Did he commit crimes that justify these methods of eavesdropping? I mean, they are using hidden microphones and cameras and stuff all the time, do they not? When they are presenting evidence gathered with the help from microphones or cameras, it is automatically known for everyone how it works. Does that have to mean that every other method is explained? I mean it's not like they are presenting blueprints and schematics on how the cameras works, right? It should be sufficient that everyone knows that a camera was used. So do they really have to present info on how the keylogger works then? The question I have is if whether the law is saying anything about cameras and microphones specifically, or if eavesdropping in general is described in the law? If it is specifically described, then I doubt that they describe keyloggers. And if they aren't included in the laws, then are they legal to use or are they not, in an investigation?
In the words of Gore Vidal (not usually one of my favorite people), "Now that the Great Red Menace is gone, the government can now turn its attention to the real enemy, which is now, and always has been, the people."
Welcome, UStasi.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Even though what Scarfo was doing was wrong, what the government did was wrong, too. Like everyone's mom said "two wrongs don't make a right".
I guess the government no longer needs search warrants, to invade online privacy. Even though it's a violation of someone's property.
I'd wish they'd see that with the DMCA. They're so quick to defend intellectual property, but the average citizen's property is fair game.
Everyone get down, everyone dance, big brother is watching.
Still, it reflects a general opinion within the FBI that they should be able to tap computer-related information without a full wiretap order. There are two kinds of information gathering here - a wiretap order, which allows interception of content, and a "pen register" order, which allows collection of data about who someone called by phone. The problem is that the FBI has been trying to expand what can be collected with a "pen register" order to cover almost everything that doesn't go through a microphone. The FBI position has been that pager messages, dialed digits, text messages, cellular location, etc. should be easily available to law enforcement. Or, "all the new stuff belongs to us".
What they probably did was go to 2600.com, get a kelogger, put their name and copyright on it and patented it (pencil whipped it) thru the USPTO and will claim that if they did let anyone "see" what they used it would be a violation of the UCITA/DMCA/MPAA/RIAA/Because I said so laws.
Moose.
I thought "flamebait" was just jailbait with red hair.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I don't care how I know,
I just know that she must be a
WITCH!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is just FBI legal maneuvering, and we all know it, because keylogger tech is quite common. I know of at least 10 different keyloggers that you can download off the web.
As a side comment--this is another case of new technology that the average person doesn't understand well(or at all), being used to degrade our rights.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Where I live possessing and smoking dope is illegal.
As I understand the situation, they used the logger to get passwords to decrypt data. The veracity of the encrypted data, as I understand it, is not the question here. Assuming the passwords decrypted the data, the only question is the legality of collecting the passwords.
Thus, the question of 'bearing witness' it moot, as it's not using the correctness of the passwords as evidence, but the decrypted data. I suppose you could argue that the passwords are wrong and the fact that the decrypted data corresponds to English text is pure coincidence, but that's is, to say the least, not a strong argument.
Things are a little different here. In the article, they say that the keylogger was just used to find the key for the encryption that the gangster was using. The actual key isn't really evidence -- whatever they decrypted is. Now; if the FBI can go into my house, and they have a search warrant, then they can open my safe. The method they use to find the combination of my safe isn't very important. Just as long as the decryption was legally done, and the data wasn't modified in order to incriminate the suspect, I don't see a problem here.
Everything above may well be poorly-thought out / spelled. Blame the beer, not me.
"This is the first basic rule of civilisation and law over hearsay, rumour and superstition."
Yeah, that's the problem. Rules require some sort of civilisation.
1) Get one of these devices. Bribe someone or steal one. Heck the FBI is losing laptops and guns all over the place so I guess you should be able to find one.
2) Reverse engineer it.
3) Reproduce a copy and start spreading the blueprints all over the net.
4) Turn yourself in to the FBI.
5) Prepare for glory!
See http://www.firmware.com/support/bios/anykey.htm if you don't know what I'm yammering about
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Oh where, oh where has my Slashdot gone?
Oh where, oh where can it be?
It use to be here at Slashdot.org,
but now I just can't see.
Taco upgraded to Slashdot 2.0
and now nothing works anymore.
Taco refuses to fall back to something that works
much too all's misery.
Oh please, oh please don't mod me down,
will someone bring Slashdot back to me?
Get off my back you American-centric sheep! Not all of the world is subject to your government's oppressive laws!
Yes, it happens all the time, since the Banjo upgrade. Of course, that's only if the whole site isn't down.
Has it occured to anyone else that maybe what the FBI is calling a "keylogger" might actually be some type of EMF snooping? It's been possible for a long time for a properly equiped black van to park a short distance from the target, and "see" what's on the screen, for example. Maybe that's why it's "classified"?
Could the defense team fight it or push for the evidence gained from the key-logger to be deamed inadmissable since it's accuracy can not be proven at the present time?
--
silence is poetry.
Assuming that it really was a key logger, how it works is irrelevant to its effectiveness. There is nothing magical about such technology.
The only thing that does matter is that the target of the investigation doesn't know there is a key logger installed.
To the moderator that mods this message as -1 Off Topic or -1 Flame Bait:
Would you be so kind as to post the *WORKING* link to where discussing the recent technical self destruction of Slashdot *IS* on topic.
I believe that this issue is very pertinent and worthy of discussion, as Slashdot has been MIA for *OVER* a week now. Yet, the editors and moderators refuse to allow anyone to discuss it.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Signed AC -1 Off Topic
One way to do this is:
It is known that they can intercept the
video signals to the monitor from a distance
and reconstruct the entire screen display (see Tempest).
With a little digital signal processing applied
to graphic input it should be possible to
extract the letters as they are typed.
one asks. Think upon this interesting note: If something is ruled either unconstitutional or, to a lesser extent, otherwise illegal, it is thus "useless" to the DoJ. So you must ask yourself, do they not reveal their methods for reasons of technical continuation for their devices or legal continuation for their devices?
"The world may never know."
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
Recently, the supreme court decided that infared surveyance, and other "high technology" surveyance of someones's house was unconstitutional, since they involve an unreasonable invasion of privacy without a warrant. In other words, that to look in someone's house, you need a warrant, even if you aren't physically entering.
So how does this apply to a keystroke monitor? Isn't that an unresonable invading of privacy, using a technology to circumvent "searches of persons and papers"?
Does the FBI need a warrant to install one of these? Or if the computer is used for "business" (even illegal business) does the constituional prohibition against unreasonable search not apply.
And more important, if we don't know how this works on a technical level, how will we ever find out whether or not it is constitutional?
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Yes, they can go into your house with a proper search warrent. and, the method they use to find the combination to your safe is important. for example, if you tell you friend over the phone, and they dont have a wiretapping warrent, that's an illegal way to open the safe. or, for example..if they put a gun to your head and told you to open your safe. that would be illegal too. however the 1st one is closer to what was done here.
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
CROWD
A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1
We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2
She looks like one.
CROWD
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE
Bring her forward.
WITCH
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE
Well?
VILLAGER #1
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE
The nose?
VILLAGER #1
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2
Yeah!
CROWD
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1
No!
VILLAGERS #2 and #3
No. No.
VILLAGER #2
No.
VILLAGER #1
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3
No.
VILLAGER #1
Yes.
VILLAGER #2
Yes.
VILLAGER #1
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2
A bit.
VILLAGER #3
A bit.
VILLAGER #1
She has got a wart.
RANDOM
[cough]
BEDEVERE
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE
A newt?
VILLAGER #3
I got better.
VILLAGER #2
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1
Burn!
CROWD
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1
Are there?
VILLAGER #2
Ah?
VILLAGER #1
What are they?
CROWD
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2
Burn!
VILLAGER #1
Burn!
CROWD
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1
More witches!
VILLAGER #3
Shh!
VILLAGER #2
Wood!
BEDEVERE
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1
No. No.
VILLAGER #2
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1
Bread!
VILLAGER #2
Apples!
VILLAGER #3
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1
Cider!
VILLAGER #2
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2
Mud!
VILLAGER #3
Churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR
A duck!
CROWD
Oooh.
BEDEVERE
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2
A witch!
VILLAGER #1
A witch!
CROWD
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE
We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]
CROWD
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3
Burn her!
CROWD
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...
BEDEVERE
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
ARTHUR
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
BEDEVERE
My liege!
ARTHUR
Good Sir Knight, will you come with me to Camelot and join us at the Round Table?
BEDEVERE
My liege! I would be honored.
ARTHUR
What is your name?
BEDEVERE
'Bedevere', my liege.
ARTHUR
Then I dub you 'Sir Bedevere, Knight of the Round Table'.
I'm sorry your Honor but I cannot testify on how our classisfied Shoulder Surfing technology works. I can only tell you it works.
Becouse they dont know how it works. They downloaded it from Hackoo!.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Why not just bring counter-suit under the DMCA for unauthorized circumvention of an encryption scheme?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
He is right... just becasue the US Gov. tells it's people it is bad does not make it so. Be smarter than that! I know you can!
yet.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
so if i use a keylogger on somebody its illegal but if say the nsa logs me say that my "31337 w4r3z fTp 15 -> 1.2.3.4:420 nsa/sucks" they could use it against me?
Carpe meam simiam!
That they don't want anyone to know that they bought their keylogger from ElComSoft.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"We have this secret evidence against, and you must trust us to tell you that you are guilty of crimes that violate these secret laws. If you knew what these laws were, we would have to shoot you.
[snort]
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." -FDR
Sounds like we made it.
We won the war against fascism, and communism, (WWII, Cold War, etc) only to be left with a communistic fascism called a corporate democracy. It is a communism of fascistic corporate interests.
Time to blow the planet while there is still a chance.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
is a news site based on Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The song is called "Go." The band was called Tones on Tail. The album it's on is called Everything.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Don't tell anyone - 'specially those FBI guys, but a company called KeyKatcher makes a neat little device that fits inline with the keyboard cable...
It comes in 8K or 32K models, and is billed as "The Easiest Way To Monitor Your PC". For more info, contact: (I have no relationship other than picking up one of their devices at a recent security expo...)
Steve Allen, President
Allen Concepts, Inc.
1823 W. Springfield Way
Chandler, AZ 85248
sallen@keykatcher.com
480-659-8076
480-659-8079 (fax)
www.keykatcher.com
While this device is designed to be place "outside" of the keyboard, there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't install it inside the keyboard with a little solder work...
An interesting quote on their web site is:
"The U.S. Department of Justice recommends that a banner notice indicating the keystroke monitoring policy be placed on all computer systems that will be conducting keystroke monitoring.
The banner should give clear and unequivocal notice to intruders that by signing on and using the system, they are expressly consenting to having their keystrokes monitored or recorded during their computer session.
If an unauthorized intruder downloads an authorized user's file, keystroke monitoring will record both the intruder's download command and the name of the compromised accessed file."
I wonder who in the DOJ recommended this, and if the FBI guys had happened to read it... Then again, can you imagine our "Family Man" turning on his PC and seeing this warning message? hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Another way they could have monitored his keystrokes is to just go in and replace his keyboard with one EXACTLY like it - right down to the dirt on the keytops. The modified keyboard would have a small transmitter in it (conveniently powered by the computer it's monitoring), and would transmit a short distance to a receiver that would then repeat the info on to where ever it needs to go... I could see the Fed's wanting to keep that classified because they wouldn't want to tip off anyone as to the frequencies (which knowing the FBI, probably aren't FCC authorized...).
But as to their wanting to prosecute someone with "evidence" that's classified - that's sheer and utter bullshit. At the very least the judge gets an in camera review and something has to be given to the defense. Otherwise - forget the whole thing.
If their (the Feds) argument is that revealing how the keylogger works would render it useless in future, one must wonder how it will be useful if the evidence gleaned from it is forever thrown out of court because they won't show how their gadget works...
Once again, stupidity prevails over science.
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
it's that software package by lockheed martin that monitors all activity on the machine, keystrokes, screen shots, applications run. etc.
AFAIK, even if they did get the combination to the safe illegally, the contents may still be admissible as "inevitable discovery". With most safes it's going to be possible to crack them given enough time and/or the right tools. If nothing else you can brute force the combination, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FBI and similar agencies have robots designed specifically to do so. Or, of course, they could physically break open the safe and get the contents that way. The key is that as long as they inevitably would have gotten the safe open without their illegal activity, they can still use the evidence they get that way. You'd still be allowed to sue them for violating your rights, but you wouldn't be able to suppress the evidence.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
OTOH in the UK they wouldn't have needed a keylogger to get the key. They can demand your PGP passphrase (the computer was seized legally, so that's not the issue) and throw you in jail if you don't divulge it. It's up to the accused to prove that he doesn't know or has forgotten it, and if he can't prove that then he can be imprisoned for failing to cooperate.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
They didn't crcumvent the encryption scheme. They used the correct password :)
Don't worry folks, the gov't will always be a two steps behind the techies..
until you grow up and work for em'
Oh well.
--- "Just because you can....aw shit do it."
Yes, but they didn't have permission to. Isn't DeCSS using a proper Xing key?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
seriously dont knock the feds too much. you dont know how good you have it, compared to other nations. /lawyers/policmen. You dont like what they are doing, go and change the law. It is like shooting messenger of bad news to yell at the feds or anybody like that who just do their f*g job.
Feds arent monsters, they are just boring civil servants
in the meantime, pgp.
I can think of only one reason why this obvious technology remains a secret... because they are using backdoors and hooks that are part of the operating system and were installed deliberately by the vendor.
At least it let you log in, which is more than it would do for me.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Well, this raises an interesting question... Would they have been able to find the passphrase within a reasonable timeframe? I think the tool used was PGP, and although the passphrase is not as strong, cryptographically, as the private key it unlocks, it might still be very large. Thus the feds might never have been able to crack the encryption without tapping the keyboard... Just something to think about...
login:slashdot2001o (that's 2001 'oh')
password:slashdot2001o
If I were going to log keystrokes, I would be tempted to use the parked van approach. I'm sure with a reasonable budget and access to better technology, reading keystrokes would be easy at moderate distances.
chongo () /\__/\
chongo (was here)
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party.
We have evidence against you, a card we found on you. We will not tell you where we make these cards.
Regards,
Communist Accuser
Why should I have to register on their site??? I can still be subjected to their ads without them knowing my Name
With a unique account, NYT can track how many unique users saw and/or clicked through a banner, thus judging the banner's effectiveness. Using accounts instead of IP addresses blocks robots from driving up the click count by hitting an ad, getting a new IP address from DHCP, rinse and repeat.
With a postal code, NYT can show you ads relevant to your region. For example, what if a local band were to advertise on NYT? How would NYT know you were from 46808 without requiring you to show your account?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Now, why would the Feds not want to disclose the mechanism of their keylogger? Either it's typical spook selfishness OR they think that doing so would strengthen the defense's argument. I havn't looked at the actual details of the argument the defense is making, so it's hard to tell if this is part of the motivation for the "it's classified" song and dance.
Defense: "Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you got a warrant to gather this information or that the keylogging was otherwise not an unreasonable search and seizure."
Feds: "Umm..... uh...."
Defense: "Motion to reject this evidence."
Perhaps they learned their lesson from the Sklyarov debacle and are trying to get a judge to rule the "wiretapped" evidence inadmissible.
Will I retire or break 10K?
<ConspiracyTheory>
I choose instead to believe that some FBI agent talked to a buddy with the NSA, and they picked the PGP key for him, with the understanding that the "keyboard logger" cover story would be used.
Now that things have gone in the dumpster, there IS NO KEYBOARD LOGGER to disclosed the details of.
</ConspiracyTheory>
Besides, anyone with a DigiKey catalog and some time could build a VERY sweet keyboard logger, with remote dump via radio, etc. We should have a contest to see how few PIC chips it takes.
--Mike--
does anyone else find it somewhat amusing that the acronym for "I Am Not A Laywer" is IANAL?
I just keep thinking of it in terms of "I, Anal" - somewhat like Asimov's ROBOT books, neh?
-Lamb of Dog.
Isn't DeCSS using a proper Xing key? :-)
No. DVD CCA invalidated Xing's first key after the first DeCSS program leaked it to the world, making it unable to decode new discs. Recent DeCSS programs brute-force the key after eliminating several possibilities. An O(n^16) or so attack on the known plaintext of MPEG headers.
Really recent versions have solved for all 400 or so player keys, forcing DVD CCA to invalidate all these keys to keep DeCSS programs for PC working. But this also invalidates all DVD players' ability to play new discs. In fact, it's possible to crack the disk key in O(24) without needing any player keys.
( Read More... |)Will I retire or break 10K?
The article says:
"Mr. Scarfo's lawyers have argued that the technology resembles a wiretap, and that using the logger without going through the relatively stringent requirements of a full wiretap order may have violated Mr. Scarfo's constitutional rights. But they say that they cannot know for sure unless they know how the logger works"
I don't understand how the mechanism whereby it works can make any difference on whether or not it should qualify as a "wiretapping device". I mean, it doesn't matter how it works, one thing remains the same - it records your keystrokes. Doesn't matter if it uses tin cans with string, EM signatures or if its just a modified keyghost type device - its functionality is the same. Surely it is or isn't a "wiretapping device" based purely on its functionality, rather than how it does its job? Any decision based on anything other than that seems like just a legal technicality/loophole. "Oh .. this keylogger is a keyghost device, so its not a wiretap, but this one is just special software, so it is"??? If thats how they're deciding, thats downright scary.
A keylogger is a keylogger is a keylogger. It was either legal, or it wasn't (given the FBI's reaction to being asked to disclose how it works, its easy to tell which one).
Anyway, it doesn't make sense to me, what am I missing here?
Just register. The New York Time provides us with extremly high quality reporting, and all they ask is to take a couple seconds to register. That's not that much for free access to one of, if not the, finest newspapers in the country.
Maybe the FBI/NSA has an agreement with manufacturers to embed a keylogger in every keyboard controller chip that is sold ...
That is a secret worth protecting.
Ooh! Ooh! A chance to troll for site traffic :-)!
My review of the Keyghost II Professional is here. It links to my older review of their Security Keyboard, which has a hardware logger built in.
They're a bit expensive, but they're very nifty gadgets, if you feel like being Big Brother for a change.
Hey let's try to not be so typical here for once. We have the FBI on the one hand, and let's assume they really do have a technology which will become useless if it gets out. We all know about American facism, it wasn't invented after the Cold War, and America did _not_ win the Cold War, let's stay on topic. Assuming the Feds do have a technology that can't get out, how would you solve it? Yes they must convince the court blah blah blah. But they need to keep it a secret too. Have you people no inventiveness?
Want to defeat this? Use some metal shielding around keyboard cables and connectors. Put your keyboard in a metal case, so that it's open only from the top. If someone's on your house's roof, you know what's going on. Wanna know more? Go to google and search for TEMPEST.
We are only now just beginning to turn this around and restore some of the limits on government.
This goes along parallel with the modern DoD's (I shiver to call anyone but the Marines and SpecOps, "Military") very obvious fall from grace. Like with some ivy-league, born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-mouth politician/bureaucrat what has never fired a gun or had a DI spit in his eye, but feels mighty tough when he orders some civilians to their death, or orders the death of American troops for some political "I'm a war hero" wag-the-dog reason. I fear the AirForce more than anyone. Since right now they are a pathetic group of asskissing career-minded pussies, history shows that it will be them in the near future that will be the first ones to devolve into a police state run organization of very well equiped thugs. A true warrior prays for peace but never hesitates to strike true when it comes unfortunately down to violence. These scum act like it is a Nintendo game.
If it's ruled as inadmissible (sp?) then the Gov has no case. Everything they have came from what they got via that tap. If tap == illegal, evidence acquired via tap == inadmissible.
FDR is truly a great icon because he sent America to fight the Nazi's to save the jews from destruction.
To attack the reputation of such a great man is blasphemy. He ranks with Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X as one of the greatest American ever to live.
It is a shame he died prematurely so he could not see the fruits of his great work emerging and he also was unable to see the Morgenthau plan being enacted which would have saved the world from the German threat forever.
A 4th Reich is currently being planned by the evil German Neo Nazi's and it seems humanity has learned nothing from the past so there could be a second genocide in history, the Holocaust against the Jewish people, part II.
Will we never learn to live as one human race, a glorious mosaic of all colors ranging from black and brown to yellow and red?
Now, I probably wouldn't condone any action you were trying to hide if you suspected someone was keylogging you, but it would seem to me that since the device records the sounds of a keyboard clicking (supposedly each keystroke makes a unique sound), couldn't you drown out the sound of such clicking by playing music?
Or for the truly devious, place a microphone near your keyboard and record some innocent typing, and then play that soundbite in a continuous loop while you are up to no good.
Of course, trying to circumvent FBI technology is probably enough justification for them to bust your anyway.
Just another paranoid bastard.
It seems to me that the simplest way to get around hardware based key loggers is to pull the hard drive/s from the old computer, and install it/them into a new computer. If the hard drive/s that contain the important data contained only said data then any additional code that was added to the hard drive would be fairly easy to detect.
If there were some concern that there was some sort of hardware based key logger attached to the hard drive then when you got the drive/s back transfer the data to a new hard drive/s, and slag the old drive/s.
FWIW
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Hmm, this makes the UK law look good, until you consider that the cabinet just has to sign a D list and the suspect is up the swannee. Just look at the Iran supergun affair. The cabinet was ready to sell an honest businessman's life & reputation down the Swanee, and only Michael Hesseltine saved him from going to jail, because the other corrupt scumbags in the cabinet REFUSED to release evidence that proved he was working in full cooperation with the government and not trying to smuggle arms to Iran.
Take your glorious British laws and your RIP bill and shove them, instead of waving them around here.
I hate to tell you this - but there is a long history in the UK of judges saying "this evidence was illegally gathered; I expect disiplinary action against the officers concerned, but as your case relies on it I won't throw it out...."
-=DaveHowe=-