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 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?
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.
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.
If refusing is helping catching bad guys, I'm all for it.
"Those who would trade their essential Liberty for a perceived temporary Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security" --Ben Franklin
If refusing is lopping the legs off the constitution, I'm against it. Right now, without answering questions, we can only assume that they're hiding something. If they thought it would stand on its own merit, they should've applied for the wiretap order. Of course, the judge would ask if they'd see him register for access to NY Times articles, or a Slashdot registration, or even a flame email that was typed but subsequently cancelled and thus never sent. My guess is that since the answer would be "Yes" to all those questions, they knew a wiretap order wouldn't be signed, as the information gathered would be beyond the boundaries of the order.
What they SHOULD have done was take the PGP source, write in a routine to either store or forward the passphrase, compile it, and tote that to the federal judge, and apply for the wiretap with THAT rather than something they bought from a spam mail about tracking your kid online. I would expect that they could get a judge to buy in on that since it would (and could) only intercept the information they were seeking.
Also, you're presupposing that all people they "catch" are "bad guys". Sadly, such is not the case, but we won't even begin to get into that.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
What happens when they want to start putting it on all machines and reading what you are writing to your mistress? Then the use that information to co-urse you into something hmm?
Sorry keyloggers my opinion are the same as wiretaps. Wiretaps record communication that has been converted into electical impulses, keyloggers do the same thing, except the storage device is attached to the computer.
Om, nomnomnom...
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!
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.
What happens when they want to start putting it on all machines and reading what you are writing to your mistress? Then the use that information to co-urse you into something hmm?
In case you have not heard, XP shipped recently.
I rest my case, now if only the DOJ/MS could do the same.
Moose.
/. needs accumulative moderations points, that way I can have a goal of +5 funny informative interesting flamebait.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
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.
Get off my back you American-centric sheep! Not all of the world is subject to your government's oppressive laws!
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.
"want to start putting it on all "
Want to? These is the police force, they are in the bussiness of hunting criminals.
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.
To them we are the criminals.. We're not one of their elite group, so we are outsiders and there fore the enemy...
UPS Sucks
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"
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.
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.
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.
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...
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)
That's my sig!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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--
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.
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.
Thank you.
You sir are the BOMB!
Eres puto...soy cabron...
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.
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.
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=-