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."

Comments

To future NYT link posters...

[brunes69]

Just replace the "www" in the link with "archive".

For this link, it is
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/technology /2 5CODE.html.

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!

Kyllo v. United States?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I have a feeling that the Supreme Court may not look upon this too favorably. In Kyllo v. US, the court ruled that use of a thermal imaging device to detect IR radiation (evidence of indoor marijuana cultivation) leaking from an apartment constituted a search, and thus required a warrant.

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)

Re:Classified?

[dragons_flight]

Things don't have to be born classified, per se. What it really takes is a guy in a government office deciding that it ought to be classified and the understanding that the info has never been made publicly available.

With science and technology projects in government most things start out with the ubiquitious "Protect as Restricted Data" designation, which means it's not important enough to guard or lock up but don't go talking about it or publishing to the public. Later on someone comes along and decides that the project or whatever has becomes more important (i.e. it actally works and is useful), and then bumps the security classification up.

The trick here is that almost nothing starts out truly unclassified unless intentionally designated so (for example some pure research efforts).

Sooner or later they have to show someone the specs, if not this judge then a higher judiciary, and there are judges with exceptional clearance (such as those that approve NSA snooping). I think the bigger concern is whether he has the technical savvy to interpret the information he is given accurately.

Re:Evidence would not be admissable in UK courts

[rgmoore]

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.

Re:Expanded Definition?

[Guppy06]

" No, not really. It's the same technology that allows a remote listener to decode printer, keyboard, fax and all sorts of other electronic gizmos."

The electrical impulses used in a keyboard is orders of magnitude less than those used in your average business fax machine or printer. And with both the fax machine and the printer, the electric motors used are extremely noisy when compared to the print head. If the printer in question is a dot matrix... maybe...

"Without taking special TEMPEST precautions there is no reason a laptop or LCD couldn't be read also."

The difference in EM radiation output between a CRT and an LCD display is like the radiation difference between uranium and gold. One involves accelerating ions to relativistic speeds, the other involves minisculse voltage differences. Combine that with the way EM drops off exponentially with distance, and, well... you get the idea.

IMO, if you're using an LCD display, and you take any precautions beyond, say, turning on a ceiling fan, you're being too paranoid.