Slashdot Mirror
Net Taps Without Warrants?
disappear writes "In the wake of yesterday's threats to cryptography, more ominous news: Wired News reports
that a bill permitting warrantless Internet surveilance has been passed by the Senate." This is just part of the expected and unfortunate backlash from tuesday. The terrorists are winning simply because the govt. can use their threat as a blank check to take away our rights. The worst part is that this will do no good whatsoever. Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?
That will teach the bastards. Katz is worse than any nuclear device.
Quick everyone install ssh and disable telnet!
No ftp, only sftp and scp.
No un-encrypted emails!
Yeah, so all new versions of encryption software are gonna have to include backdoors so government officials will be allowed access if they need it. Great idea, but uhm, who exactly is gonna make the terrorists all upgrade to the new version?
--It's Pimptastic!--
Many civil liberties are restricted during threats to "National Security." Ever heard of martial law and curfews?
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
I understand why the US government did it, but like guns, it won't stop the criminals from using encryption. You know, yesterday I spent a day downloading most of the PGP software because I figured this shit might happen...I recommend that you guys do too. I might be outlawed again soon...
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Evesdrop on the senator's email.
I'm truly saddened to verify how much the Dubya adminstration is owned by Microsoft, but there's no escape from reality: Osama Bin Laden is Bill Gates in disguise. If you have any doubt, do this: open any Microsoft Word document, and type New York's initials in capital letters: NY, then change the font to "Wingdings". This is better done with a large font size, 24 point or larger.
Do not fear. Get all your crypto software from Canada!!
I don't know who said this but it distills it all down to one sentence I believe.
"In war many atrosities are committed."
I tend to be more or less trusting of the government, but that's just me.
Username taken, please choose another one.
Sadly the acts that the terrorists took part in on Tuesday were very much conventional warfare, in that it was likely planned and executed through a cell-structure, and with conventional 'weapons' (ie non-NBC).
I wonder if the Internet was used heavily in this action, and if it would be used heavily by such groups in the future. we all know the security issues involved with using technology (and read that as a privacy issue as well). Its been reported that bin Lauden doesn't use cel phones or other wireless devices any more to keep the US from triangulating or tapping in on his communications. Much as I hate to admit it, these people arn't stupid. Tapping the internet without warrants won't keep them from communicating, they'll go to other methods less easy to tap.
Meanwhile we loose a bit more of our own liberty. There is the first lesson, and likely the terrorist's first victory.
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
Anything that is truely our **rights** in a constitutional sense will be protected by the supreme court.
The congress will push, the courts will push back, and life wil lgo on as it has in the US.
I get the feeling a significant cross section of slashdot just likes to run around hystericly like the sky is falling.
MIT PGP Link: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html
International PGP Link: http://www.pgpi.org/
Like I said as soon as it happened,
bye bye civil liberties.......
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Civil liberties are most affected at times like this - when the majority are affected by some sort of crisis or bloodshed. This move would work for a month or an year, till FBI or the Govt is successful in rooting out this evil. At the end of it they would claim Carnivore helped them bring these criminals to justice, the same way Patriot missiles were at first claimed to have a 90% success rate, where as later it was found that the success hits were much much below the previously claimed numbers.
Similarly FBI and the Govt would use Carnivore in a similar way, touting its use among the people without deriving anything valuable out of it. And when the war against Bin Laden is over, they would turn it on us, the people. By then, it would be too late. Any efforts to revoke Carnivore would never win, as the Govt would be quick in pointing out that its needed to prevent further bloodshed, and the Congress would happily send Carnivore on its way.
Civil Liberties have been trampled on the ground once again and theres nothing we can do about it right now. Lets stand on the sidelines and watch, for now.
Rapid Nirvana
Is any representative of the FBI or of Congress presenting any evidence at all that the Internet was an indispensible part of the attack on Tuesday?
It seems that the idea here is that the network is different from other, more traditional communication networks (telephone, fax, mail, newspapers, etc). I don't see that much of a difference, and I would like our legislature to tell us why the net should be treated differently. Not that they will, but its a nice thought.
Which brings me to the next idea. Could a constitutional defense be brought up against this law? If you need a warrent to tap phones, and a warrent to open someone's mail, why should the networks be any different? While our lawmakers might not ask this question, a good lawyer might be able to make a judge ask them.
Until then, PGP and SSH. Encryption will save the day. The only problem is with protocols that don't have encryption (a lot of the IM's I use since that's what the majority of the people I communicate use, IRC (with some exceptions), simple webbrowsing, etc. There are hacks for some of these, but not all of them. The net is insecure, and the bullies out there include our government. What can we do to harden our defenses?
Write your senators. NOW.
List of Senators and Contact info
Don't Tread on Me
Is it going to get to the point where I have to use a SSL tunnel for everything I do online? I already use SSH exclusively for remote access to my other off site machines.... this is just getting plain wrong.
What we need to have is secure ftp (ya it exists already but it is not standard), secure web (encrypted all the time, some sort of public key encryption), encrypted chat, encrypted email... encrypted everything.
I don't know about everyone else but I am pretty paranoid... I already use an encrypted partition for all of my sensitive data and wipe freespace & swapfile regularly. I've been considering getting a smartcard reader/writer and writing some custom software so that it must be inserted at all times in order to use my computer(s).
Big brother scares me....really scares me. I know that in light of this past week's events it is in poor taste to be unpatriotic but what the hell.... if something like this passes and it gets abused I will move to another country.
I've got an idea, lets decrease the amount of monitoring and catch those terrorists. Let's reduce the amount of lead generating tools and techniques and guarentee they get away. How about this: Let's just give up the whole investigation so some whiner's can surf porn anonymously. Isn't that what this is about?
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Levin (D-MI) are the only ones asking for restraint and thought before bulling forward with this amendment to the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill (which is sure to pass).
As I said the WTC attack will be used to usurp our rights. They only have to say i>"threat" and our rights are gone. At least with a judge, there is/was a safeguard.
Fight Spammers!
The problem is even worse. The main problem of
the military and intelligence service is: adaptation. Whatever the security measure is, a determined group can adapt their methods.
Really, even monitoring every single communication on the world would not help. You can use steganography and communicate e.g. via eBay-bids. Every moderately experienced programmer could setup a system, to e.g. use a newsforum or even just TCP-timing-traffic to communicate undetactably.
You cannot prevent these attacks by military or intelligence force. It's an understandable wish but it simply doesn't work. To be honest, it's
detestable how politicians use these horrible events to implement their politics.
By technical/military means you can improve security a little but you cannot rule out attacks like the ones happend. There must be far more to it than just showing muscles and regulating cryptography and flying a revengeful attack.
Bush said in a speech that the terrorists attached "freedom". No the terrorists attached people - this law attached freedom.
If the US Government (and all their UN allies)think that by passing laws requiring backdoors in encryption programs will help thwart terrorism they're very naive.
I would imagine that countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, and other anti-USA countries have math genius' that can devise strong encryption schemes. If anything - the government should pour millions and billions of dollars into microprocessor research.
Another thing I'd like to see is the US Government put a 10 year plan of isolation into effect, which in turn would force big business to hire workers in the US, create goods here in the US, and keep US dollars on US soil.
And to think I have been very liberal in my politics...
Give blood, give money and give prayer.
I would feel MUCH safer if the US Government put armed US Soldiers on trains, busses, and airplanes.
God bless the victims and their families. This has to be the worst week ever.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
"Acts like this deliver more victory to our enemies than would a thousand downed towers."
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Allowing prosecutors to determine when they want to observe someone, without requiring a warrant from a Judge is a blatant disregard for the 4th Amendment. I understand that there are many people who are scarred due to the events of the last week, but this is no reason to allow the government to throw away the principles on which this nation was founded.
Is banning strong crypto capitalist or socialist? what about the DMCA or SSSCA? Surely someone should tell the terrorists! Will the bill have a section on double ROT-13 encryption? what about quad ROT-13? thats pretty strong. If childeren are taught at an early age to encrypt their handwriting/speach on-the-fly-in-their-heads (i'm sure its possible) will their freedom of speach be restricted? Will the government of the US ever reach the mental level of a 10 year old? who knows... who cares...
Mod me down and you are with bin laden
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Your legal interpretation of this would be
interesting.
This actually makes me more sad than learning of the news at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania. The realization that the terrorists have not simply attacked and been repelled, but that they have come closer to winning, and in doing so limiting the liberty of millions, and billions in the future, saddens me more.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"1984", author George Orwell, 1949, ISBN 0-679-41739-7
Free cell phone tracking
I'm hoping that one of my USian friends put this in front of the right sets of eyes. Let freedon reign.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
You call the judge up at 3AM, explain what you are doing, and have him fax it to you.
Or maybe you keep federal courthouses staffed with at least one judge with a security clearance 24x7, if its so important.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I'm sorry but Hatch and Feinstein are Fuc*** idiots. Talk about overreacting. They talk of workin within the law that's what seperates us from terrorists. Now they are bending it to catch them and prying more rights from us. Save time and just go in Afganistan and grab the SOB it would be easier. Only in America or should I start saying Amerika.
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
Government officials will use only lawful software, which has backdoors built in. And terrorists will use unlawful software to open the backdoors in the official software.
Write your senators. NOW.
I doubt you'll get much of an audience. I know in reality restricting encryption won't make any difference as encryption is widely available outside the US but after what happened, the so-called "intelligence" community has been perceived as having their dicks in the wind when this was going down. Now they are trying to save face. What they really need to concentrate on are the gaping holes in aviation security as well as more thorough scrutiny of those entering North America. Soliciting the cooperation of Canada and Mexico will be essential.
You're using her as bait, Master!
I don't know why people are freaking about this. Remember this isn't taking away your rights. Its protecting your safety. Understand. Perhaps if you disagree you should visit New York.
Also remember that the government bodies that can use this aren't evil. They are made up of normal people who only want to do what is right. Perhaps those that oppose this need some therapy for paranioa.
As the war on drugs and various other zero tolerance policies and similar idiocracies proved, the true enemy of the government are within. The citizens are the ones that are a target of every government in the world, be it the eastern or western block or the 3rd world countries or the middle east countries. Its same all over.
Even the terrorists get more respect and care from the government than their own citizens. Recent support of US for Chechna conflict that was supported by the same Osama bin Laden who is said to be behind the recent attacks and the same one who was trained by CIA for a terroristic actions against superpower (at the time Russia invading Afghanistan).
These terroristic attacks are merely an excuse of the government to leverage more laws in the war on its own citizens. Before you will think about oppresion, just think about the number of people who sit in the jail for completely harmless crimes. If smoking pot is so dangerous, why the tabaco smokers (much worse drug) are not serving even longer terms? I bet they would, if half of the legislators would not be heavy smokers of tabaco themselves.
The government will not prevent terrorists from having strong cryptography, but thats not the goal, they can always bomb them afterwards in the worst case. And these attacks help them get through more anti-citizen laws. (DMCA, SSSCA, anyone?) Its the citizens that need to be watched at every steps and no warrant wiretapping and backdoor in avg. Joe's crypto is exactly what every police state needs.
The internet is actually showing in last years how much is government trying to be in control and that there are not many differences between how US and Russia govt. operate after all. They need to do something about it FAST. Expect more soon. I can see the zero tolerance policy against any use of cryptography in near future.
If you have anything to hide, you are criminal!
Enjoy!
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
The foreign policy of the US is a mixture of cynicism, brutality and ... that's going to haunt us in terms of
irresponsibility. Washington has pursued a course that has inflamed
the hatred of large sections of the world's population, creating
an environment in which recruits can be found for bloody terrorist
operations. In rare moments of candor, foreign policy specialists have
acknowledged that the actions of the United States provoke hatred and
the desire for retribution. During the Balkan War, former Secretary of
State Lawrence Eagleburger stated: "We've presented to the
rest of the world a vision of the bully on the block who pushes a
button, people out there die, we don't pay anything except the
cost of a missile
trying to deal with the rest of the world in the years ahead."
This insight has not prevented the same Eagleburger from declaring
Tuesday night that the United States should respond to the destruction
of the World Trade Center by dropping bombs immediately on any country
that might have been involved.
The same media that is now screaming for blood has routinely applauded
the use of violence against whatever country or people are deemed to
be obstacles to US interests. Let us recall the words of New York
Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who had this to say to the Serbian
people during the US bombing campaign in 1999: "It should be
lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, road and
war-related factory has to be hit.... [W]e will set your country back
by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We
can do 1389."
Given this bloody record, why should anyone be surprised that those
who have been targeted by the United States have sought to strike
back?
George W. Bush's address to the nation Tuesday evening
epitomized the arrogance and blindness of the American ruling class.
Far from America being "the brightest beacon for freedom and
opportunity in the world," the US is seen by tens of millions as
the main enemy of their human and democratic rights, and the main
source of their oppression. The American ruling elite, in its
insolence and cynicism, acts as if it can carry out its violent
enterprises around the world without creating the political conditions
for violent acts of retribution.
In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's attacks, US authorities
and the media are once again declaring that Osama bin Laden is
responsible. This is possible, although, as always, they present no
evidence to back up their claim.
But the charge that bin Laden is the culprit raises a host of
troubling questions. Given the fact that the US has declared this
individual to be the world's most deadly terrorist, whose every
move is tracked with the aid of the most technologically sophisticated
and massive intelligence apparatus, how could bin Laden organize such
an elaborate attack without being detected? An attack, moreover,
against the same New York skyscraper that was hit in 1993?
The devastating success of his assault would indicate that, from the
standpoint of the American government, the crusade against terrorism
has been far more a campaign of propaganda to justify US military
violence around the world than a conscientious effort to protect the
American people.
Moreover, both bin Laden and the Taliban mullahs, whom the US accuses
of harboring him, were financed and armed by the Reagan-Bush
administration to fight pro-Soviet regimes in Afghanistan in the
1980s. If they are involved in Tuesday's operations, then the
American CIA and political establishment are guilty of having nurtured
the very forces that carried out the bloodiest attack on American
civilians in US history.
The escalation of US militarism abroad will inevitably be accompanied
by intensified attacks on democratic rights at home. The first victims
of the war fever being whipped up are Arab-Americans, who are already
being subjected to death threats and other forms of harassment as a
result of the media hysteria.
The calls from both Republican and Democratic politicians for a
declaration of war foreshadow a more general crackdown on opponents of
American foreign policy. General Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded
American troops in the 1991 invasion of Iraq, spoke for much of the
political and military elite when he declared on television that the
war on alleged terrorist supporters should be conducted inside as well
as outside the borders of the US.
It is the policies pursued by the United States, driven by the
strategic and financial interests of the ruling elite, which laid the
foundations for the nightmare that unfolded on Tuesday. The actions
now being contemplated by the Bush administration--indicated by
the president's threat to make "no distinction between the
terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor
them"--will only set the stage for further catastrophes.
No.
The government thinks that they can discourage use of cryptography by the general public. Thus those using cryptography will stand out, and thus can be given greater scrutiny. There are much easier ways to find the contents of a message than breaking cryptography (for example, keystroke recorders).
The government can already do this for organized crime or situations in which there is imminent danger. Go read the current law here.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3125.html
This just adds US Attorneys [real prosecutors, not bureaucrats like the Attorney General and his deputies] to the list of people who can activate a warantless tap, and terrorism to the list of crimes for which they can get a warrantless tap.
Yes, Virginia, the government started taking away rights a long time ago...don't be so surprised.
Sadly, terrorism is the perfect threat for those who want to take liberties away. Liberties are always curtailed in wartime (read the Bill of Rights: writs of habeus corpus can be suspended during war) and everyone in Washington is saying that this is a war. But in a normal war there's a clear enemy, and some way of telling when the war is over. Fighting against terrorists, though, there is nothing but a mass of shadows. There's no way of telling when they've all been caught of have given up, so there's no way to tell that the fight is over. That means that there's no time when the liberties that are ignored in the interests of pursuing the war should be reinstated- so they likely never will be. We must fight to preserve them now or we can kiss them goodby forever.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
It is still very difficult to get a wiretap warrant, both for email and telephones; the burden of proof is extremely high. Now, I'm not saying illegal wiretaps are not done, but it's still just as difficult to get one legally. I'm not in law enforcement, but I'm also not a paranoiac. Mod me down for both acts of reason.:P
jaz
Death to Argument by Slogan!! (This post twice-encrypted with ROT-13. Replies not using same will be ignored)
Oh, perhaps you will apply the 'mighty' pussy ass US military that values politics and career minded pansies over warriors. WAKE UP!
Where can you go to live freely after this? Mexico?
Whatever happened to:
My country 'tis of thee
sweet land of liberty (?)
of thee I sing...
OUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSCRITTERS ARE SO DAMN STUPID. EVEN THE ONES FROM CALIFORNIA VOTED FOR IT.
Investing in nanotechnology would be a far more reliable way of preventing such tragedies in the future. Buildings made of supersmart nanomaterials could bend and sway to deflect oncoming projectiles. Aircraft made of superstrong lightweight nanomaterials would make large explosive fuel loads unnecessary. Custom nanobots could be made to track individual terrorists. All this could be reality in a few years if we just give Eric Drexler more money.
I deeply resent all thats happened to you....
but I mostly resent all that will happen to all of us (im Mexican). My country's economy will shatter as america closes its borders, your economy will die as well, but thats offtopic...
Communications. If you guys start passing this kind of laws, it will be very hard for us to communicate with you.
Inside america there are lots of providers (mostly for the Mexican industry, and also clients. How are we all going to talk to each other if all calls will be monitored and americans wont be able to use decryption. Economically speaking, this world could shatter if America tightens its border too much (you guys consume almost a third of the worlds production. Needless to say that no, you cant produce it yourselves, you need the exterior as well.), and it will bring her own dead with this measures.
I hope your historical, proved alliance with democratic and liberal values saves you... and us all.
Alex
NO SIG
Even better we need to learn to write protocols that run on top of other protocols.
Build bbs style packet-based message systems that are hidden in mp3s.
Encode many many layers within the internet's already existing foundation.
Steganography engines are the wave of the future. Just like that website where you can turn any block of text into a spam message and then decode it out again. Imagine higher level programs handling all of this automatically. Forwarding so-called spam messages into its own folder to be decoded as a messageboard.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
The Clinton administration shipped crypto devices to Pakistan that ended up in the hands of Bin Laden?
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
...that www.aclu.org has been down for a while? I don't think it's hosted in NY, and it was up all day yesterday.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Seems like your prayers and pleas are only to save your own skin, not out of concern. Islam is a murderous, bigoted, heartless satanic cult.
This week, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for restrictions on privacy-protecting encryption products, and Carnivore's use appears on the rise.
This is precisely what I was worried about when talking with my friends the other day. Already an anti-encryption rider has passed through Congress with the $40 billion worth of aid. Once we start to let the government take one small thing away from us in the realm of privacy, we are more likely to allow more.
There is much talk of installing facial recognition software (which many people have pointed out has many flaws resulting in false matches) at airport concourses, customs and gates. Even furthur, there are those who are planning to install such things at sporting events like the Olympics much like they did at the Super Bowl last year.
What really concerns me is that most people seem to be accepthing this without question. Again I ask, who will be using this data? For what ends? With what warrants? How will they know what to check?
Write your congressional representatives and ask these questions. If they can't answer them well enough then this should not be allowed.
Any loss of freedom is a loss for all freedom.
Chris
Its not my 5th Year of College - Its my Victory Lap
I think its funny that everyone automatically assumes that the government gives a shit about what you do on your computer. If the government wants to read my email, sniff my packets, or what have you then so be it. Doesn't bother me in the least because I really dont have anything to hide. The government has always taken certain neccessary measures in times of national crisis and this is another example of that, everyone just needs to quit being paranoid and let the government do what it will because the more strongly you bitch about it, the more determined they're gonna be. Who knows, this might save your house from being destroyed in a future attack because they intercepted an email from l33tTerrorist@hotmail.com outlining an attack. What are you gonna cry about more? Your "privacy" being slightly invaded or being homeless?
I think my overall views on things like this have changed over the last couple of days, but I don't see this as being all that bad. Given that this only applies to potential national security issues, I seriously doubt I'm going to get spied on by our government over a few mp3 files lying around...
/. news.
I have a hard time with the common view around here that:
- The government should stay out of our business
- Unless we happen to be Microsoft
Maybe I'll lose kharma over that, and maybe my views are skewed by the recent attacks, but I'm pretty sure the government has no wishes to read your email or spy on your telnet sessions. That's not what this is about. I actually think this is more along the lines of something I've heard a lot about on CNN lately, regarding making sure the authorities have no obstacles in their way of obtaining the information they need to prevent terrorist attacks and such. I think this is only a small part of that, but of course since it involves the internet and "privacy", it's
I'm all for constitutional rights, don't get me wrong. If someone is spied on without just cause, they should (and I think do?) have every right to pursue legal action; but as I heard quoted on CNN (I've been glued to it for 3 days now), "this is a new world". I do not think anyone is going to be spied on without good reason.
There are many things changing all of a sudden that might be a bit drastic; most of the new air port security standards would not have prevented Tuesday's attacks. But this particular issue doesn't sound to me like it will really affect any of us, unless the government have reason to believe there is a national security issue.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Has anyone noticed this, but doesnt it seem that there is a large number of people in DC who just dont really seem to care about the plane crash (only using it to push their own agenda) but only care about getting this shit passed?
+ 1 that article it is GOOD!
Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?
/. crowd is being fair with this one. The idea isn't to stop the criminals from using crypto; it's to make it a slightly faster process to DEcrpyt their stuff.
::flamesuit on:: Actually, that's probably not the reason the gov't wants to ban crypto. Think about it for a second:
Every day thousands of geeks and perhaps dozens of terrorists send back and forth messages that have been encrypted. The geek messages may be frivolous, just simple messages about life and groceries and the kids and other trivial things. Even if they have a right to, there's no real reason for geeks to encode these things. Big Brother doesn't give a rats ass about what you're writing.
Now, make it illegal to encrypt messages (example) and this flow of messages from the geeks will cut of SLIGHTLY. However slight, the decrease in the number of encrypted messages intercepted per day could drop, thus translating into fewer messages that need to be decrypted and thus translating into faster processing time for the NSA (or whoever).
Do I support this? No. But I don't think the
Give the gov't some credit. They're not stupid. Just misguided and corrupt.
student of animation and the fine arts
Dan Rather said it best when he said that one needs to be very careful with initial reports...
You're using her as bait, Master!
They are getting the cold war they wanted.
"Freedom is easier to protect, when there is less of it."
But really, I'm going to wait and see what happens before I condemn Congress for this.
For one thing, it seems the interference with civil liberties is well known even to the nightly news anchors, so it's not just a few of us geeks vs. everybody else. A lot of people are wise about these things and they'll get the message across.
Though if you want to mail your congressperson a letter, be sure to include a small paragraph or two describing basic RSA encryption, to demonstrate how simple it is to implement and how the algorithm could be easily memorized by anyone with advanced math skills.
I haven't seen much coverage of this in the major US news sources, but both Globe and Mail and BBC have stories of senseless attacks on Arabs and Muslims in North America. One of my co-workers had to keep his kids from school because of bomb threats.
Sixty years ago, out of fear and anger, members of my family, along with thousands of other Canadians and Americans of Japanese descent were put in internment camps. I say this to remind people that, the road from finger pointing and mindless reprisals to invasion of privacy, censorship and suspension of individual freedom is very short indeed. With all the recent media comparisons to Pearl Harbor, I fear that history may be heading in a very disturbing direction.
Vigilance is paramount now, not in looking for scapegoats or suspects, but in watching for government abuses. Don't look back twenty years from now and think "I can't believe such an abuse of civil liberties happened in this country". It may be happening already.
While I fully agree with the point they try to make, I really cannot imagine that it hasn't been made in the legislative bodies as well. Your aaverage politician really is not that stupid, even if it is trendy to claim otherwise.
So I'd like to request that instead someone who has talked to these people or who has read the proceedings of their meetings tells us exactly why this argument isn't being accepted, or why it is being overruled. No speculation and no "because their morons" statements, please. Just the facts.
Reiterating the same thing over and over in front of the same crowd of devoted followers is not going to change anything other than your /. karma. What really needs to be done, is to find (and then propagate) the proper reply to the reasons why the people who see things differently hold that opinion. Only then do we stand a chance of getting anywhere.
Linux user since early January 1992.
Complacency contributed to this disaster. The couple of security exposures I can highlight immediately: 1) You don't have to go through a security checkpoint again when you get off a plane and board a new one. You should. 2) Procedures for pilots handling unruly passengers. Were pilots trained to hole up in the cockpit and land at the nearest airport (And possibly lower the cabin pressure to the point where everyone in the back passes out) when something like this is going on, this incident would never have happened. Cryptography is not the danger, complacency is.
The Internet is already years behind where it should be because the US Crypto Stance has pretty much eliminated the possibility of a commercial software package using cryptography on a large scale. Cryptography is vital for the authentication of identity on the net and this application has gone largely unimplemented. How many illegal stock manipulations would have been prevented if all companies PGP signed all their press releases, for instance? And spam could be all but eliminated if everyone encrypted their E-mail and refused messages not encrypted to their key. It seems to me that lawmakers want to put the genie back into the bottle not by eliminating all crypto software but by eliminating the Internet itself. This is just one of several increasingly unfriendly pieces of legislation introduced recently.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...this in the amendment. Look under TitleVIII, terrorism.
Relevant clipped text:
"(a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1) of this title, the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order shall, upon service of the order, apply to any entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance is required by effectuate the order." My emphasis added.
This can be applied to much more than the 'net. I am glad to live in Utah, so I can NOT vote for the Honorable Sen. Hatch next election.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
they better not spy on me having cybersex with CmdrTaco...
Simple: The FBI is, when they knock on the terrorist doors.
If your computer is caught sending packets that are labeled (e.g. GPG headers) as encrypted, your computer will either be bugged to get your password or seized to search for plaintext secrets. In theory, this will allow terrorists to be subjected to legal scrutiny while they are still conspiring about acts of terrorism but before those acts are committed.
In reality, it won't work that way:
In otherwords, we're giving the government authority to review every law abiding citizen's digital communications, without judicial oversight (the FBI had your email, and you're going to take their word for it that nobody, with or without official permission, looked at it?), and without impairing the ability for lawbreakers to engage in undetected low-bandwidth communications (and you don't exactly need to videoconference to plan a terrorist attack) at all.
Did I miss anything?
So, people have been able to do this for years already. Why didn't all you people whine about it before? I know why. Because warrantless wiretaps quite rightly had no f*cking impact on your lives whatsoever. Believe it or not, the government is not spying on you. Therefore, you didn't notice that this law even existed.
So please, explain why, if this law has no f*cking impact on your lives whatsoever, you are suddenly bitching about it? Are you really that afraid and hateful of prosecutors, the very people who defend you when you are the victim of a criminal act?
I am sure there is a very important reason for this bill. The current FBI investigation is so wide in scope that forcing everybody to go through a judge or the US Attorney General to get a wiretap would quite likely allow people to get away who otherwise would have been caught. If you really are so offended by this, at least wait until this horrible and necessary investigation is over with before beginning your uninformed, childish bitching.
there's a big throbbing cock up my ass, what should i do? :-(
(from the New York Times)
He then offered a broad criticism of the evolution of the C.I.A., saying it had moved too far away from "human intelligence," involving agents who infiltrate organizations, to relying on the Internet, bugs and satellites.
"Many of our human intelligence sources dried up" because of the risks, Mr. Bush said, noting that using people who are willing to betray their friends and their country was a "dirty business" filled with "unsavory" characters, but perhaps necessary.
He said the nation needed to "strengthen our intelligence," adding, "I think you're going to see a little effort to do that."
In other words, simply banning encryption isn't going to make the problem go away. Somebody is going to have to go out and get up close and personal with these scumbags.
You're using her as bait, Master!
the point is not to make terrorists use strong crypto; the point is that if they have a _suspected_ terrorist, and hes using strong crypto, they already have charges they can leverage to lock him/her up.
At last someone who does what I just asked people to do in over here: move the discussion forward to why the government doesn't listen to the "criminals don't care about laws" argument and to what it is that can be done to address that.
Linux user since early January 1992.
This bill is a device used to ensure the circumvention of electronic encryption. Bush would be a criminal upon signing the law should the House of Representatives pass it, and would be eligible for impeachment thereafter. Then the Supreme Court would rule the law unconstitutional, which would be really ironic and unsettling.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
Now, I'm NOT saying that I am in favor of this, or the backdoor encryption rules. But in the WTC/Petagon attack, the thugs were living in the US for a while. One can imagine that they were communicating and firming up plans.
By and large, if someone is going to strike at the US with a terrorist attack, they will communicate with someone in the US. Unless they are going to launch missiles at the US...and then we're back at the Missile Defense can of worms...
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Turkey has done more to help the US then most other countries. During the cold war Turkey was a front line country, hosting nukes pointing at the USSR. Infact part of the deal from Cuban missle crisses was that the US would remove some of its missles from Turkey if the USSR removed theirs from Cuba.
How do you think the US bombs northern Iraq? the air bases are in Turkey. They sent troops to Korea. Turkey is a NATO member that has gives support under Article 5.
Of course, Turkey must be anti-US because they are a Muslim country of nearly 70 million.
It seems the US has a history of turning friends into enemies.. Iran and then Iraq, if you would like to turn Pakistan and then eventually Turkey into your enemy then please carry on. If we've learnt nothing from this event is that making people hate you eventually comes back to bite you.
Seriously, there are still over 4000 people unaccounted for still it's only been three days, and you're worried about people reading your email. Lets put things in perspective if only for a moment then you can go back to being paranoid. The price of this attack is being payed with what I believe is the temporary bending of the rules if my isp decides to cooperate without being issued a warrant, after all I'm subject to certain types of monitoring in the tos already. While I dont want to be monitored I can understand the temporary need to gather as much information as possible, the question we need to ask: Is it worth another attack because we couldnt retrieve vital information that might help in stopping it. I think the answer is no. Granted in the future when things settle down I would not want to be monitored but under the circumstances I can understand it. As for the alteration of encryption software to suit the government, it's a laughable idea. You'll do anything to help you say, anything but this? Things will go back to normal just not today or tomarrow, it will take time.
I HAVE A 17 INCH ERECT PENIS AND I WANT IT IN YOUR MOUTH RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
k ha sfjhfaskhlfhaskhlskfjhafhlkklhasfhhsfaksfahlklskfh
kjlasflkjsafklasflkhfasjhsadlsfalsfahlkasfkhfas
We really need crypto to be easier to use, if we want to combat routine, unnecessary, unaccountable, and and secret privacy violations.
Today, I briefly considered how I could make so that when two of my machines happened to be exchanging mail with each other, they would do so through a crypto tunnel (at the transport level, not the message-body level), but after looking at the documentation, I realized that it would take me at least a week or two to get it working, if I'm lucky. And I just don't have the time.
The only way crypto is going to get used is if it's on by default.
We are so not there yet.
I guess you fall in the camp of the 'If you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to fear'? How about we put in laws that allow your daughter to be strip searched in case she is hiding evidence in her vagina? How about that? Intelligent people are NOT against this because of what it would mean to criminals, they are against it because it could potentially make criminals out of decent law abiding citizens, and the obvious ideas of dignity, privacy and soveriegnty. If you choose to give up your rights for security, then you go ahead. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up their freedoms for security, neither deserve and keep both." Time for you to wake up and use some logic and reason.
"It sucks. It's inconvenient". blah blah blah.
You said it yourself, the genie is out of the bottle already and can't be put back in. Just as this will not prevent terrorists from having secrets by using encryption software that is not crippled, niether will it prevent us. You already have or can get safe encryption software, that they cannot crack. Also, there will be new software to come down the line that will be even more effective.
The next generation mail client will send it's message as HTML with a few jpegs. But, the message will be in the jpegs not the HTML. It won't be any more complicated for you, as the software will handle the encoding automatically for you. Steganography and encryption will make your message seem the same as the trillions of other web pages flying around the net at any particular moment. They'll never be able to effectively monitor or intercept anything that we truely don't want monitored.
It's terrible that terrorists will also be able to do this but, that's the way it is. Perhaps the impending, massive epidemic of lead poisoning, as the US starts killing off the bastards, will reduce the risk of terrorists for us all.
Oh no! The government is going to be able to read the beer recipes I send friends through email! The horror! The horror!
I thought someone was already eavesdropping on me.
At the very least I was being used as a stalking horse in the search for porn. So many of my favorite sources have dried up.
I created a simple system to encrypt email in PHP in a way anyone with a browser can read.
Source is coming; http://ssl.simonster.com/ncrypt/
There's certain rules that regulate what the gov't can do with information it has. When a search warrant is issued, they can only take items related to the search warrant. It's the same with Carnivore and other items. They can't just search the logs to find 'bad' things, they've got to suspect something before they can search the logs. If they suspect me of terrorism, I authorize them to check my tcp/ip traffic. If they suspect me of wasting time at work reading /., I'd rather them look the other way. :P
If we can stop this madness from ever happening again without turning the US into a military state, I'm all for it. I don't just want action AFTER disaster strikes, I'd like action BEFORE this evil ever happens again.
There's ways to keep our Privacy (really, what do you have to hide? Not all of you are freedom-loving idealists!) and keep a grip on the wack-jobs out there.
If you look at sec.832, you'll see it amends the U.S. Code to include electronic communications such as the Internet. Before it was just wire communications. The Wired article is right, and even underplays how dangerous this is.
First of all, I would like to say that I love playing devil's advocate, just to see how people defend their logic. That said, I have a few ideas to put forth: First, although the freedoms given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights were (and are) critical to the development of our society as it stands today, they area also the very same liberties that allow people to commit these acts of terrorism. As long as like-minded people are allowed to meet and communicate with each other, we will ALWAYS have to deal with the problems of extremist people doing bad things. Also, the fact that religion is virtually unrestricted/unmonitored means that those same extremists can feel safe and justified in beleiving that what they do is O.K. The real problem though, is that with the advancement of technology, people have not only gained the ability to do amazing things for the benefit of good, that same technology has ability to amplify the effect of anybody who wants to do bad things. In the past, the most that a crazy person could do(depending on the timeframe you look at), was club/knife/shoot some people. Now, those same people end up slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people. Of course, this applies to good technology too. We can't(and shouldn't) really stop these things, so in the end we will just have to deal with them. How we choose to do so will determine the fate of this country, whether we go towards Orwell's 1984, or whether democracy and freedom continue to flourish. Please don't flame, I am simply trying to represent BOTH sides of this argument. And what the hell, it's only karma. BTW, can someone email me a link/document to using HTML text formatting on slashdot, and what commands it does and doesn't allow? Thanx!
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Now lets look at WHAT THEY JUST SAID! They have released a statement not only saying 'if you attack us we will GET REVENGE by OTHER MEANS' but call for ALL MUSLIMS to fight the US. Forget about calling for all muslims to help the victims and their families... forget about calling for all muslims to help find the true culprits. No, we will basically admit our guilt and then hypocritically and ironically threaten the US (except its not ironic for those who know what Islam trully stands for)
Whoops, your latest and greatest beer recipie which you sent to your friend in VA looked a little too much like the recipe for Guinness. 2 years in the slammer for intellectual property misappropriation. Of course, I needn't even point out that some people use e-mail to converse trade secrets and such. You, Sir, are a troll.
Instead of those magic laws that solve all the world's problems, I suggest this: allow people to be free, but keep a technically competent, highly motivated, well paid, corps of crime fighters active at all times.
the ACLU is a self serving and hypocritical elitist organization. They are not about civil liberties except only in their name. They are about government enforcement of racism and bigotry, while enslaving the population under hate and mistrust.
Ok, if this law is passed, here will be two illegal things.
1. Using strong uncrackable encryption for communications.
2. Flying airplanes into buildings (already illegal)
Well, if the terrorists are willing to violate the second law, surely they'll go ahead and break the encryption law. This will be useless. It's about as useless as asking passengers on airplanes if they're terrorists.
Maybe the idiots who post all of these trigger words (i.e. bomb, coup, iraq), really did screw up echelon. otherwise you think they would of caugh something like this. Maybe those arabs were using smoke signals? for those that don't know what echelon is:Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering organization in the world. Several credible reports suggest that this global electronic communications surveillance system presents an extreme threat to the privacy of people all over the world. According to these reports, ECHELON attempts to capture staggering volumes of satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic traffic, including communications to and from North America. This vast quantity of voice and data communications are then processed through sophisticated filtering technologies. This massive surveillance system apparently operates with little oversight. Moreover, the agencies that purportedly run ECHELON have provided few details as to the legal guidelines for the project. Because of this, there is no way of knowing if ECHELON is being used illegally to spy on private citizens HERE IS THE LINK: http://www.echelonwatch.org/
Chant of the weasel that wants control.
Now would be a good time to write your representative and push for a sunset clause to the House version of this bill. If they are going to let the emotion of the moment get the better of them, the least they can do is write an out in the bill. Let them vote on this again when cooler heads prevail.
try this
[What's this lameness filter message?
Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted ]
dont you have to pay income taxes?
The tragic destruction and loss of life from tuesdays attacks was terrible, but it's this aftermath of hatred and paranoia which terrifes me. By turning Americans against each other and scaring us out of our freedom, these terrorists will have us do more damage to ourselves than they ever could.
i think its time to change my sig...
Who wins here? The terrorists. Now we get to live in a next to police state. JUst watch. First they take away crypto on the net, then they will allow phone taps, as well as cell phone taps. Then carnivore or some program like it will be required on teh net as well as some automated phone listening system. Then we can take away peoples right to go to the airport unless they are flying. They do it in India (I'm told from someone who would know). Then what?
We are at war on our own soil, with an enemy which we cannot see.
Personally, I don't have anything to really hide in "email" in the way of information. Of course this affects SSL so there goes the credit card online shopping....
Only 'flamers' flame!
Is or is not the internet a public network? It is. When you speak on the internet you speak publicly. No matter the app. If you want it to be private, use encryption and hope for the best. Don't expect that your packets, which are flowing through dozens of routers located anywhere and owned by who knows who, are private. Or sacred. Or protected. Not when you're communicating in such open view of so many people.
Starski - We need to talk - Hutch
Somene mod this up as funny. The implication here is is does not matter if encryption is illegal and it does not matter if the FBI can grab my email without a warrant. If I want to communcate with someone it is trivial to setup code phrases to be posted in public boards like Slashdot. This one is targeted, but I could just as easily change my sig to read "Captian America is eating a cheese sandwich". This is meaningless to everyone but its intended target.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
I asked my shell account sysadmins to upgrade the system level gnupg from 1.0.1 to 1.0.6 a couple of weeks ago.. they've been moving slowly, and when this happened I gave my shell account my own upgrade. If you have a non-root shell account and the sysadmins are not offering or updating GnuPG you can build your own.
Download and unpack the code in your home directory. It will create a new directory gnupg-1.0.6. CD into that directory and run
./configure --prefix=/your/home/directory
and then run 'make' and 'make install'. The install will create a gnupg directory off your home directory. Update your ~/.bash_profile and add ~/gnupg/bin to your PATH.
Next you can google for incorporating GnuPG with pine. It basically involves symlinking gpg to "gpgsign" and "gpgencrypt". Then configure pine to detect incoming gpg-handled email and to offer processing your outbound email just prior to delivery.
Intelligent Life on Earth
I'm pretty sure the government has no wishes to read your email or spy on your telnet sessions.
If by "the government", you mean President Bush, I agree completely. You'd probably be right about 99% of Congress, too. If the government was a monolithic hive-mind, we'd have no more worries.
But isn't the NSA part of the government? The FBI? The CIA? The Houston Police Department? The State Senator you've been helping a political campaign against? The FBI agent that Senator asked for wiretapping assistance, who thinks your Slashdot posts smack of communism? The sysadmin who set up that agent's computer, who thinks he can snag blackmail-worthy personal information with a ten line perl script? The script kiddie who found a computer left unpatched by that sysadmin over a 3-day weekend?
If I send an encrypted message from myself to my friend, then unless one of us gives it away or one of our computers has been compromised, our message is safely restricted to us. Do you think it's that easy to safely restrict that message to 3 people instead of 2? No. 300, maybe.
But this particular issue doesn't sound to me like it will really affect any of us
Not all of us. Everybody who never sends private information over the internet should be fine.
unless the government have reason to believe there is a national security issue.
When will the government not have reason to believe there is a national security issue, now? When terrorists around the world decide to work toward peace through song instead? Perhaps measures like this would be palatable if this were a real war (although if it was, wouldn't the last thing we want be civilians' "loose lips" flapping unencrypted?), but real wars end eventually. This threat will never end, and so anyone who suggests a "temporary" measure towards reducing it is trying to sell you a lie.
Of course not. But they will pretend that it is so, because it gives them a pretext which cannot easily be argued against in the present climate of public opinion (bomb the bastards etc.). The real motive has to do with the ruling elite's passionate desire to improve monitoring and control of citizens by the state. This is something I think is common to all governments unfortunately.
Ironic, isn't it. The one thing every democratic government fears is an informed and empowered electorate since that is the one thing that can remove them from their comfortable position. They can only remove the threat by centralizing control and keeping the public in the dark about what's really going on.
Under normal circumstances a democratic government can't get away with this easily (at least not in one fell swoop) but given a dire enough disaster they can blow it up into an national emergency and invoke all sorts of "special provisions" that were quietly sneaked onto the statute books but that most people never thought would see the light of day even if they knew.
What you are now beginning to see is the spooks coming out of the woodwork to seize what they no doubt see as a god-given opportunity before the sense of panic fades away and the people regain their senses.
It's not just the US either. Why do you think just about every other government jumped on the bandwagon? Most people in these countries are a bit shocked by the week's events but they're already used to terrorism much closer to home and an attack in New York is, well, thousands of miles away. Just something they saw on TV, like the civil war massacres and famines in Africa, the earthquake in India and so on. No, the reason these governments rushed to jump on Dubya's bandwagon is that they want a piece of the action too, so they can find a pretext to clamp down on their own populations.
I mean, there is Bush talking about an international collaboration to fight those prosecuting a war against "freedom and democracy" and yet even the Chinese government, author of the Tiannanmen massacre, is signing up for it.
Figure it out for yourself.
People are missing the other ramification of a mandated cryptographic backdoor.
I'll bet that within a week or two, the backdoor is cracked, even if there is some 'sealing technique' used in the software. After all, they cracked Microsoft's AARD, and that was pretty thoroughly protected. Within another week, organized crime, Drug Lords, and even terrorists will have access to it.
Once the backdoor is cracked, encryption is effectively worthless for anything but protection against other law-abiding citizens. But that's not the worst.
One of the most essential uses of crypto is SSH, OpenSSH, and the like, so we can administer the machines that make the Internet hum. Even WinNT/Win2k uses an encrypted channel for admin. Except now we're mandated to use only crypto with a backdoor, and the blackhats can open it, too.
No secure remote administration. No secure credit transactions. No Internet. No nuthin. It all falls apart.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Call Senator Feinstein at (202) 224-3841 and
mention how you are upset that she sponsored
this bill and you are NOT going to vote for
her in the next election.
DUH! If there is a backdoor, don't count on the government being the only one to know how to get in.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/628909.asp?0dm=C12LT
:D
Must be the MSDN team who wrote this
----------
Microsoft told The Guardian that claims the game could have been used by the terrorists are "highly inappropriate, speculative and counter to what the investigators are saying."
However, the company said it would remove the World Trade Center from the New York landscape in its upcoming Flight Simulator game after the twin towers were destroyed this week.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I explained this to someone else today when asked why I am staunchly against a backdoor/etc in a crypto program.
A good crypto program is based on a function f[x] such that f[x1] = k, and you cannot find x1 if you know the function f[x] and the encrypted k. This, folks, is hardcore advanced mathematics!
To add in a regulation that there be some "backdoor" (eg: some function that will always take g[k] = x1 for an encrypted value k). Once that function g[x] is known by anyone (f[x] would have to be made in a way such that g[x] must exist btw.. it doesnt just happen) then the communications of everyone that uses that encryption algorithm is compromised.
Think of the problems -- no secure transactions (haulting "e-business"), no secure transmissions of trade secrets (look at france -- the companies just moved to a different country), and generally no information is secure.
Now.. to find a way to convince/explain this all in everyday words...
ideas?
Well, they sure as hell didn't stop martial law during the civil way.
What exactly is the nature of e-mails that everyone is so paranoid about the gov't intercepting? Do you send anything that might be a threat to the Gov.? If you have nothing to hide, then why are you hiding? They can read all my e-mails for all I care, there's nothing in them to incite any riots...how about yours?
dktrjkyl@home.com
Not only did the Canadians leave the door wide open and let the terrorists in, they have openly offered to harbor other criminal enterprises, such as Microsoft.
Anytime the nice Sgt reads the unlawfull assembly act and forces everyone to disperse that is IN FACT invoking MARTIAL LAW. They just don't use it in its' full glory.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Your freedom means NOTHING if you are not alive to exercise it and/or your country no longer exists.
Freedom is neither free, nor dumb.
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
Perhaps the next move will be to ban mathmatics....
."
--
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm not sure why everyone (inc. government) assumes they are using crypto. Try this for foolproof, nigh-untraceable, safe communication.
1. Get a piece of paper and pen
2. Write "Abdul, please perform xxx terrorist act on xxx date. Signed, Osama." on the paper with the pen.
3. Fold, insert in envelope.
4. Put stamp on envelope, address to Abdul.
5. Drop in mailbox.
Now, explain to me how carnivore, echelon, or backdoors in crypto will ever catch this.
Odds of message arriving: nearly 100% (sure, mail sometimes get lost, but its REALLY rare.)
Odds of being intercepted: nearly 0%.
Use a P.o. box and you don't even have to put a name on it (concievably the post office *might* be able to somehow watch for mail addresses to suspected terrorists).
Connected to the internet? The Sandia National Labs Red Team can break into your computer, right now. Deal with it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
You want flaimbait? You a bunch of socialists. After having you rights stripped by the DMCA, you watch as the SSSCA comes in to mop up. Your government then takes the piss right infront of you buy having carnivor installed in hours where it would normally take months. As if that wasn't enough, your congress wastes valuable time talking about what is effectivly a dumb idea while there are _real_ issues at hand, like how many middle aged men named Ahmed should be allowed to board the same airliner :). The terrorists were totally wrong: they shouldn't have been attacking your govenments capitalism and anti islam. They should have been joining you in world domination.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Ignore the decss crack, but seriously, if crypto has a backdoor with a set key, what happens when it leaks or is cracked? Average joe has access to everything then?
Never hate too long, or too deeply, because we become what we hate.
This just in from The Times of India:
_ ID =1678044290
"US weighs new forms of e-surveillance"
http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art
In the debate I witnessed on CSPAN, one of the opponents stated that the wording of the bill is loose enough that it allows a "wiretap" privledge to be given to anyone from an FBI agent down to a private investigator, for any reason, so long as they certify their request to a federal judge as being "relevant" to an investigation. Even then, the wording of the bill amendement says nothing to the effect that the judge makes a decision on the matter.
Here's the text, decide for yourself:
I don't see anything here about a burden of proof, however that may be part of the larger context.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Already talking about a bunch of bullshit issues when larger issues are at stake. Fuck you, you heartless bastards.
Wo der Freiheit sich ein Zufluchtsort?
Das Jahrhundert ist im Sturm geschieden,
Und das neue oeffnet sich mit Mord.
...
In des Herzens heilig stille Raeume
Musst du fliehen aus des Lebens Drang!
Freiheit ist nur in dem Reich der Traeume,
Und das Schoene blueht nur im Gesang.
Anybody has a good English translation of the above? Sounds very relevant.
A **VERY** broad, as in DMCA broad, Constitutional Amendment guarrantying the Right to Privacy.
Yes, this is scary stuff. Pay attention to section (E) and you'll see that it only refers to those crimes which 18USC1030(c)(2)(C) applies. From that section:
Now, let's go looking at (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7), for those of you with clean sheets (if you don't have one, you're hosed, as pretty much anything under 18USC1030 gets punished under (c)(2)(C) if you're a repeat offender, as the other portions of (c)(2)(C) point out):
Note that (a)(5)(C) was specificially excluded:
Subtle shading between (a)(5)(B) and (a)(5)(C), but the key is recklessly causing damage versus simply causing damage.
Essentially, going item by item, if you
then you're open to this, according to the law . Now, all the white hats, and an overwelming majority of the grey hats, can likely agree to these conditions. That being said.. There are enough loopholes here to drive a truck through, and I doubt that prosecutors will take the full time to research those specific sections of 18USC1030 which this newfound power would allow them to use. Three cheers to the first person who beats the "slam dunk" case because a prosecutor got a little too zealous in their wiretap and blows the chain of evidence right at the start.
Now, let's look at what this law does NOT cover from 18USC1030. Let's kick it first with (a)(2) and (a)(3).
Wait a second... You can hack (without the non-judicial wiretap, though you're still fux0red under existing law) BANKS, THE GOVERNMENT, AND ANYTHING ELSE, so long as you're not under (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) as well.
Even further, under (a)(6), also not covered under the Anti-Cyberterrorism amendment, you can keep trading passwords (without the non-judicial wiretap--again, you're fux0red under current law though).
In all, it's pretty bad, but they could've done worse. If you give ANYONE the legal authority to wiretap without judicial oversight, you're giving a monkey a loaded revolver. In this case, however, the monkey's more likely to shoot itself than it is to shoot you.
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
http://congress.nw.dc.us/c-span/elecmail.html
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Dear XYZ,
Like you, I am aggrieved at the tragic loss of life resulting from the horrendous events of September 11, 2001. Every American has been touched by this trauma which will linger forever in the memory of our nation.
Though I want to see the perpetrators of these acts brought to justice, I must beg you not to compromise American civil liberties in your pursuit of justice. The loss of American citizens' ability to move and communicate freely and their right to privacy would be a greater casualty than the thousands killed Tuesday morning, considering how many millions of Americans have already died defending those freedoms throughout our country's history. In the end, reduction of civil liberty will not prevent a repetition of such disasters -- only a worldwide attention to the root causes of terrorism (like poverty, warfare, injustice, child abuse, intolerance, and racism) can do that.
Benjamin Franklin said that those who give up necessary liberties for security deserve neither security nor freedom. I must echo his sentiment. Do not allow our sacred rights of freedom of speech, privacy, association or movement to be abridged in the coming days of difficult choices. America's enemies hate us in part because we are a free and open society, and they fear the potential that that represents. Do not give them the victory they cannot themselves win by destroying the core of our society, our beloved liberties.
God Bless America,
NAME AND ADDRESS
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
In Katz v. United States, Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in 'national security cases' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to 'bug' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of 'inherent' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a 'reasonable' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in 'national security cases' than in cases of 'ordinary' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any 'United States person' will be overheard. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
I don't think this is a big deal at all, they won't even do it unless they really think you're going to do some nasty stuff. As someone else pointed out in a previous post, during a peroid of threat to national security you don't really have many of your constitutional rights at all anyway. This is very understandable... I mean if the country is threatened the government isn't going to wait around for a search warrant to catch the suspected party, that would be insane.
However the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution places limits on what the government can do. If this measure indeed offers warrantless surveilance, the Supreme Court may well find that it contravenes the Fourth Amendment.
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 reply would normally be used as a rant against the government but because I believe my network connection is being tapped I would just like to say nothing!
Removing civil liberties to preserve American freedom is like fucking for chastity.
The enemy know where our weaknesses are. They have analized them carefully. Don't let them use political Akido to use our own force against ourselves.
The only way to preserve freedom is to grant it, and defend it.
KFG
MOD this up. The original post claims that this is really no big deal, and it is up at 4 right now. This poster shows that the original post is wrong and Senator Leahy's fears are very real.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
He could not have foreseen the types of questions that face us now. And he'd acknowledge that and NOT handcuff his forward-thinking with historical-handcuffs...
We can look back for *guidance* but not for diction.
Things change
So must our assessments and strategies
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
The parent of this comment is a vital exchange that exposes this ammendment for what it REALLY is.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Whats it going to take for you people to realize that you're not national security experts, and are in no business to question their work.
You people bitch and complain that the NSA, and other national security agencies weren't able to prevent this (Tuesday's attacks), and then when they suggest certain changes to security protocols, you tell them they're taking away your freedom.
I mean come on, the rest of us have the freedom to live and not be killed by terrorists don't we? Why should we listen to you idiots that would rather have more people killed and not have the terrorists aprehended, all in the name of encrypting your stupid little email with your secret internet lover so your wife doesn't find out, etc. Oh no, big brother is watching you, ever think there's a good reason for that?
You fools...
governments all over are using this as a blank check. In a chicago suburb (Oak Lawn) there have been many peacful rallies. and now the village has delivered memos to all schools and public places that peaceful and unpeaceful assembly is illegal. i called them up and they said to write a letter and hung up.
Folks, look at it from a simpler aspect. Everything around you is a balance between the right and the left ( just opposing views ). Sometimes it swings one way and sometimes it swings the other. It takes time and patience to sort these things out. Sometimes you need to use "tilt" to win the game sometimes you don't. But eventually it always evens out....
That is unless you are in Vegas of course...but that's a different matter.
Is it only encripted messages that will get scanned or anything containing certain key words?
I just thought that adding a sig of:
kill, bomb, burn, war, jihad, israel, iraq, Bin, US, USA, America, bad, hurt, discredit, military, Navy, Army, Marine, Air Force, President.
should get you viewed by damn near everything.
Might be fun for those that don't give a damn.
Could the government really be so uninformed as to institute countermeasures that not only take away our civil liberties, but at the same time are completely useless?
The cynical answer is "yes, of course they are".
...but sometimes I wonder. You and I both realize that these supposed "countermeasures" are completely meaningless in terms of terrorism, because we're Informed. The general populous is Uninformed.
Let's assume for the moment that the government is Informed. The certainly have the resources, and they have people working for them that know "what's up".
The simplest explanation is that government opprotunists are simply using this as an excuse to take away our civil liberties, so they can more effectively control us.
And to think they could be doing something productive with our tax dollars.
The guy posts something out of his ass and gets a +3!
My friend Rob is organizing meetings to "get the word out about the importance of civil liberties, and start the process of producing some credible and even-minded articles and letters to be sent to local newspapers, TV stations, and community groups. "
If you're in the Baltimore area please help out with flameless, populous minded articles on the current threat to our civil rights. If you cant get there - email.
What happened on Tuesday was and is an atrociuos act. In our response to this incident we cannot wear away at what originally and even now makes this nation great - our personal freedom. Don't let that be destroyed.
I say simply cut off all electronic and phone (except for diplomatic) communication to suspected murderer harboring countries. No murder orders, no murders.
When we do it we monitor for requests to these places and vigorously interrogate the sources of these requests. Lots of wasted time, but thorough.
Tell these countries to turn over all murderer cells or the comm stays down.
This includes postal, phone, internet, cavity and complete strip searches on people traveling to and from these countries.
This is war baby.
Then we eliminate the cells in our own country.
If it gets messy, we do what we have to.
We must do whatever it takes to stop these butchers. I will give up my encryption for that, even though when the need for the law is gone, the law won't be.
Whatever the government does to stop this, human rights violations, whatever, I support them. I will also be the first one writing my senator to repeal these laws if and when the war ends.
I am positive that there are people who could turn these US cells over to the FBI. If they don't they will be the ones responsible for any suffering that occurs.
L8,
ac
Redundant=2 Offtopic=3
And here's my reply (which you should also mod as offtopic and redundant, because it is offtopic and because the same idea was stated in the Slashdot article that was about encryption):
If instead of 100,000,000 people sending non-back-doored encrypted messages, only 500 people are sending them, how would you rate the FBI/NSA/CIA's relative ability to investigate these individuals for threats of terrorism? In scenario 2, when they see a message using unapproved encryption, they can choose to look into it.
Now to respond to the responses I am bound to get about this:
The U.S. can't control the world's communications, blah, blah, blah.
Yes, but the can pass laws (enforce? maybe...) about communications that enter or leave the country.
Big brother is out to get us...
My post was not intended to address this issue. You might want to post to the article on this subject to avoid getting modded as offtopic like this post is going to be.
Bin Laden doesn't even live in the U.S.
Yes, but many of his contacts and co-conspirators live in or visit the U.S. in the process of doing his work.
Yeah, but what about steganography, culling, or some other way of achieving confidentiality and hiding/avoiding encryption?
This is probably the most interesting sort of reply. However, you might consider posting it to
the article on the subject.
Now moderators, please do the right thing and mod us down.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
We are being herded to begin this war.It is simple to see this. Can american intelligence completely fail so much as not a single warning being heard? Can strong cryptography really be the solution?
In fact, we know nothing of the methods used by the alleged terrorists. They could have used many variation of current technology. They could have passed information in the simplest way possible, with a messenger.
All that has occured. Think about this. Who has the most to gain? The beginning of this war is the justification to strike at this invisible enemy.
Using weak encryption to remove privacy is the key to surveillance. After all, if the governement can watch every email how can we claim it is secure?
It will be tremendously easier to find *any* person who disagrees with the government. And I believe a fair size of the slashdotters have something of an anti-establishment stance. Rightly so in my opinion.
It is obvious also that the passage of the SSSA (I think), the companion of the DMCA will for all purpose enable private institution to completely control all information flow in our society.
Of course, I think all the readers here understand the problem I am talking about in a way or in another. But let me reiterate in simpler words.
We know not how the terrorist work.
We will allow the government to assume totalitarian power on information.
The general public has already been sold on the need for war.
It is only logical that when this conflict escalates, the USA wish to introduce a *reliable* way to identify people. Anyone wants a chip implant?
Taking on space
I am surprised that both sides jump on the band wagon without hesitation.
"During Thursday's floor debate, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), head of the Judiciary committee, suggested that the bill went far beyond merely thwarting terrorism and could endanger Americans' privacy. He also said he had a chance to read the Combating Terrorism Act just 30 minutes before the floor debate began."
If Leahy didn't agree with it and didn't have enough time to read it, then why did he approve it.
When you have moderate republicans and moderate democrats, then you have a one party system.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Here's some wisdom in regards to divorce, a matter which affects 50 percent of our population every day:
"Don't make long-term decisions when you are upset --your judgment isn't sound and you don't want to build the rest of your life on decisions based on anger, guilt or fear."
Yet, here we are, taken advantage of in our most vulnerable moment, by those who've waited for this opportunity to strip our rights away from us. They've used our current emotions against us in a brilliant maneuver. Those foreign terrorists handed our own special group of terrorists unprecedented powers that require NO judiciary oversight.
They've sidestepped one of the foundations of our political system and liberty, the checks and balances between the three divisions of the government. This is good for us?
If this, and legislations like this, are the future, I feel sorry for those who come after us. They'll never experience the freedoms we've enjoyed and taken for granted.
But, as the obvious nature of this hasn't immediately been apparent to you, I doubt anything I've said will have changed your opinion. Take the blue pill, the red has a bitter aftertaste.
~Quid Pro Quo~
This surfaced on Declan McCullagh's Politechbot list this evening:
2 32 037638&rtmo=pUsM4USe&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/01/9/14/do0 1.html
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02514.html
In an opinion column in the London Daily Telegraph, John Keegan calls
for a combined US/Russian/British invasion of Afghanistan:
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk:80/dt?ac=006026
He then goes on to say, and I quote:
==========
"There are other current movements of which to take note, as yet
insubstantial but certain to gather concrete form. One is the retreat of
human rights lawyers from the forefront of public life. America in a war
mood will have no truck with tender concern for constitutional
safeguards of the liberty of its enemies. The other, which ordinary
Americans will have to learn to bear, is interference with their liberty
of instant electronic access to friends and services."
"The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet,
without question. If Washington is serious in its determination to
eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow
the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public key
ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security Agency's
computers - and close down any provider that refuses to comply."
"Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their
buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the internet is
implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be
reckoned to be over."
==========
The "Torygraph" is the most conservative of Britain's serious
newspapers, and is edited from (IIRC) the 30th floor of London's tallest
office tower, which overlooks London City Airport, from which STOL
planes take off pointing straight at the tower. I know, I've been there
myself, it scared me then. Their fear is excusable. Their
bloodthirstiness is understandable. Their stupidity is neither.
Ken Brown
Kidding! And really the OSI is just a model. Other than the fact that you have to get a CA to sign your certificate, you are really just looking at two different encryption algorithms(SSL vs. PGP). I'm not convinced you would get any better security using SSL for your mail - unless each party has certificates and it is important to you that you can verify the other party with certainty. It won't make your mail any more secure, but it will enable you to verify the person sending you mail. However, if you set up two machines that are mailing each other, you don't really need certificates(you already know the identity of each end). PGP should be just fine.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
From the looks of things so far, the perps of this heinous crime weren't exactly cut from technophile cloth (at least one of them allegedly spoke about the attack on a cell phone for crying out loud.)
When it comes to this dirty business stuff, Dianne Feinstein is about as clueless as they get, and Orrin Hatch (despite his apparent enlightenment on Napster last year) isn't far behind.
These two represent a problem I've been thinking on for some time: we've become lazy, and to a certain extent, arrogant. We look for the quick-fix; the easy way out. We think that somehow technology will save us. Sorry, Senators, it won't.
Problems like terrorism are tough for us because they don't lend themselves to the quick-fix, the 'neat hack'. They take hard work, patience, and most of all, adaptability.
Bush Sr. and McCain have it right - 'human' intelligence is the way to go. Infiltrate, learn, redirect, subvert. This is hacking at the highest level.
- dvd_tude
CmdrTaco: "Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?"
This is such an obvious and sensible objection that it makes me wonder. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a large part of the U.S. government no longer serves the purpose of democracy. The war may be, not on terrorists, but on the American people. My guess is that it is not conspiracy, but widespread government corruption.
That's the only conclusion that supports all the information. For example, the U.S. CIA trained Osama bin Laden. See the 1998 MSNBC article referenced in the first paragraph of What should be the response to violence? where I've tried to pull together some of the facts.
Whenever there is a problem, there seem to be two situations that go together: 1) The U.S. government intelligence agencies say they did not foresee the problem, and 2) the intelligence agencies had a years-long prior involvement with the person who caused the problem. Osama bin Laden is one example of this.
Another example is General Noriega of Panama who had a working relationship with the U.S. CIA for years before he was accused of drug trafficking. Was the exposure of Noriega caused by his not taking orders? A quick Google search on "Noriega General Panama CIA" gave a link to a chapter in a book by Noam Chomsky, The invasion of Panama. Chomsky's book is called What Uncle Sam Really Wants.
Another link on the first Google page was, The Real Drug Lords, A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade by William Blum.
Bush's education improvements were
Ok, we go back to the days when the government says "you can't export anything greater than 40-bit encryption". Why is it we can now export 128-bit encrytion? Because every other country (well, at least most) in Europe and Asia was selling it.
US Companies were at a competitive disadvantage because they couldn't, legally, sell high encryption products overseas. Now replace "40-bit encryption" with "the US Government can't break or use a back-door to access" and you basically have the same thing.
Not only that, do you really think those back doors are going to stay secure. Heck no!! Once someone figures them out every bank transaction and email going across the internet is open season to hackers. I figure it would take about 24 hours for some hacker to figure out the back door and post an exploit.
It's kind of like the old saying "Encryption doesn't kill people, people kill people". Don't kill the method, it's sound and does what is supposed to do. Go get the bad guys. Besides, do you really think the bad guys really care about the law? In the case of NY, they didn't even care about themselves.
There are actual good uses for encryption. We use it to secure our financial transactions, to keep people from spying on our businesses, and between each other to keep private conversations private. Placing a backdoor in an encryption scheme makes it vulnerable.
Let's not let the terrorists win. Leave encryption alone and go get the real cause: terrorists.
What will it take, I wonder, for you to consider this bill for the greater good? IMHO, catching just one terrorist in the act through this bill would make it successful. How do you weigh innocent lives vs your net privacy. If the tragedy on Tuesday could have been avoided by screening the emails of the terrorists involved, would you have supported that? The government has better things to be doing than reading your email. As soon as you accept the fact that your personal correspondence is not as important as you'd like to think it is, the less paranoid you'll be.
What are you doing, I wonder, that you have to be concerned about? Besides, it's not like they'll be screening random citizens. They'll need a reason to look in your direction. If you're doing something to cause them to notice you, chances are they should be seeing what you're doing anyway.
But, as the obvious nature of this hasn't immediately been apparent to you, I doubt anything I've said will have changed your opinion. Take the blue [loveposts.com] pill, the red has a bitter aftertaste.
Yeah, because you disagree with my post I must be dumb and closeminded. A closer examination of my post than you undertook would reveal that I didn't say the bill was good, I did say it isn't as bad as the headline made it out to be and offered a couple of points in defense of my position.
I'm surprised you used your login for that post, most trolls use anonymous login to protect their precious Karma.
BTW, if I hear that Ben Franklin quote one more time I'm going to puke. He had a few pithy aphorisms, but Ben wasn't much more than a country bumpkin with a better-than-average ability to amuse Frenchmen.
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
the logical step in this will be to install Aquarious routers and have computers sit their and sift through your transmissions and redirecting it to the 'appropriate' parties, regardless of where you originally wanted it to go. After that the Illuminati come in take over completely and we become subject to their whims (or are we their already). How do we know that this isn't where this wedge of anti-freedom heads us to. Taking real power is always done in wedges, you can't get all the power you want all at once, you need to first insert the wedge then keep slamming on it harder and harder, driving it into the constitution until you can't pull it out with out serious problems.
This is the part where I get up on my soapbox and tell everyone to quit whinning like babbies.
So the FBI and NSA can tap our emails for the next 48 hours. Who gives a rat's ass?
Think about this: In your everyday emails are you writing to people about nuclear secrets, your groups' terrorist activities, or plans to overthrow the government?
No?
Then why should you care? Do you think that the government cares that you are writting an email to a friend who you haven't seen for a while, or plans about what you're going to do for the weekend? Get realistic here!
IF YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Of course, during national crises like this, we are going to have some civil liberties cut back. We need to give the government the benefit of the doubt that they know what's best for us.
Remember, we do not live in a "real" democracy. We elect REPRESENTATIVES to make the right decisions for us. If you think you can do a better job then run for office!
that is all.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Sadly, most constituents won't read the fine print to see what the huff is all about. They just want that YES vote to assure that something is being done about this.
On February 27th 1933, the Germans had a similar case. Somebody had set the Reichtag, symbol of the nation's power ablaze. People were quick to blame the commies and the Jews. Laws were voted to discrimate against those groups. Anybody speaking up against those laws was labeled as supporting the terrorists.
However, as we know now, it was the nazis themselves who had set the fires...
These attacks are the price of freedom. For freedom to work, you have to trust the people, inside and outside the country. I think we need to just take our licks and be happy that we are still free to live however we want, love whoever we want, say whatever we want, and think whatever we want. Our forefathers were willing to give their lives for our freedom, so why can't we repay the favor for our descendents? When did we turn into such cowards? I think some war and hardship would probably do us good, to perhaps shock us out of our childish cowardice and encourage us to grow. Contentment is psychological and spiritual stagnation, and from what I can tell, this is the most intellectually stagnant and spiritually bankrupt civilization that ever existed. We have no belief in truth, we have no principles, we have no respect for life, we worship gods on the basis of the logic of a six-year old. We just go to work, get drunk and fuck. That's it. No mental development is occurring beyond the age of eighteen or so. "But look at how many incredibily complex things I can do with my toys and gadgets!" I hear you cry. Idiots.
The courts are...
Check out e.g. http://www.weyrich.com/political_issues/reichstag_ fire.html.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
>This country has never had martial law declared.
Never over the *entire* country at the same time, but martial law was in effect all over the confederate states after they were conquered by the north.
For that matter, Lincoln felt completely free to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution he felt bound by (as did Jackson, Nixon, and several others over the years.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
..is fighting for our liberty against parts of our own government, in our own courts.
If the congress, acting in their usual ill-informed manner, imposes a requirement to use buggered cryptography only, I will continue to use strong crypto, and if need be I will go to court and defend my right to do so.
It may be expensive, it may cost me some time in prison, but it has to be done and I would consider it part of my duty to myself.
I've never taken an oath to do so, but I too will preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I hope that won't include the Congress.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Not in a terrorism investigation. Such authorizations are granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Part of the sleight-of-hand executed by the intelligence/law enforcement world has been portraying warrants as difficult to get, while quietly operating a court that rubber stamps warrants.
Back when DES was being developed, the NSA helped make it secure-- but under the condition that the key length was reduced from 64 bits to 56 bits (which the NSA at the time probably could crack through brute force if they REALLY had to).
The problem with backdoors is that the terrorists might get access to them too, or enemy nations, etc. Or even criminals. Just think, with these master keys, they could eavesdrop on e-commerce transactions protected with SSL and steal credt card numbers...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Here's a thought. Send random strings of random characters to destinations all over the world.
Let the feds think you have some unique encryption
scheme.
this is not what it seems.
The USA *already* trawls through internet content & communications with filters in order to serve the CIA's economic esponage & surveillance fetishes.
What this new law is for is to alower evidence collected via internet filters to be used in a court of law to legally convict terrorists.
Many terrorists don't even use encryption. An encrypted message is in itself suspicious. Having agreed on a code it is much easier to say "Hope you have a good time on tuesday, I'll see you later, remember to take pictures" and noone will be any the smarter. Also using a code in the fashion of the above won't even get the sender or reciever into the pile of suspects.
However, like said above. Strong encryption is being developed in other regions of the world too, not only in the US.
Finally it is said that the means of communication between the terrorists was old fashioned paper and pencil. Also since they were all in the Boston, New York, and Washington area. Here net taps would not have helped at all, only created a false sense of security.
IT IS ALL A LIE
Carnivore and Echelon will not work against terrorists.
Government even knew the dastardly attack was coming - so Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper reported.
People were complacent - because of this LIE.
They knew billions was being spent on Carnivore & Echelon for just this sort of problem.
Terrorists know they are being looked for by Carnivore and will get around it by other measures.
When not planning face to face - they would use personal couriers.
Perhaps give mobile for single message when required - just using message - go with plan a / b or abort.
I have always said - terrorism is just the excuse they use, the US to raise funds for Carnivore - the UK to justify R.I.P. bill - to spy on the people.
The "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law" argument is made to pressure people to acquiesce - else appear guilty.
It does not address the real reason, why they want this information. They want a surveillance society.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances available for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on Carnivore will not protect you - IT IS A LIE - TERRORISTS WILL GET AROUND IT.
You are a simple-minded dimwit if you believe different. What a big supprise it will be to you, when they use chemical or biological weapons to kill thousands.
Carnivore will not help you one bit. Government are immoral to use this excuse - especially at this time.
The authorities hide simple solution to trademark and domain name problem to abridge your free speech rights. The US Government violate the First Amendment - WIPO.org.uk
We all talk about using PGP for all our emails. How many of us have actually done so? It cant be done. Nobody else we email has uses a client that will decrypt by default.
It is only a matter of time until Congress decide to ban PGP usage outright (why do you need privacy from the government unless you are doing something illegal?).
We will all be restricted to using backdoor enabled cryptography. And dont be fooled into thinking they cannot enforce it. There'll be software on the ISP level that enforces the rule.
Guns are legal, but encryption isnt. Thats just great.
I wonder what rights I will lose when there's another terrorist attack. Any guesses? bets?
Bye Bye fourth amendment, nice to meet you.
There is no solution to this, we're all doomed. The general population has no idea what encryption is, or why they need it. Just like they have apathy towards the DMCA. Its extremely difficult to argue against backdoor-less encryption.
The only thing we can do is to slowly educate young people in our college age group and younger of the requirement of privacy and the presumption of innocence in a free society. Maybe then someday the clock can be turned back.
I dont see why the terrorists had to bomb the world trade center try to destroy our freedoms, when we were doing a much better job without them.
Einstein stated that he hated "patriotism upon demand" because it promoted nationalism that in turn creates a 'them & us' mentality. But make no mistake they are us! They are just like us in that they believe that the ends justify the means; just as our government does. Y. Arafat once said that the difference between a soldier and a terrorist is that the solider can afford a plane for his bomb. The Terrorist has to carry his in. We may be smug in our self-righteous "wealth and power" that we pretend we somehow deserve (because we were born into it?) Don't kid yourself; we've been exploiting the peoples of the Middle East for a very long time. Read 'What Uncle Sam Doesn't Want You To Know' by Noam Chomsky. He is notorious for chronicling our interventions in the Middle East and in the third world. He shows how the "wealth and power" we enjoy is built on the backs of these people who for reasons unknown to us actually hate America. Go figure. Dag Hammarskjold believed that exploitation was violence. (He doubted that there could be a politic without violence). I agree, and we have been doing these people violence for a very long time. The kind of hate that it takes to fly a planeload of innocent people in to a crowded place to kill them and yourself doesn't spring up in a vacuum. They've been ruminating on this for a great long while. They are like us in just the same way the Shiite Christian praying for the death of O. Ben Laden is as deluded as the terrorist who thinks he's going to be a martyr. Y. Arafat once said that the difference between a soldier and a terrorist is that the solider can afford a plane for his bomb. The Terrorist has to carry his in.
I love my country, but I suffer under the notion that we should be responsible for the means by which we act as a nation. It's that whole troublesome Judeo-Christian ethic thing. I have no desire to see O. Bin Laden become a martyr at the expense of innocent Afghanistan nationals who are already suffering with a famine and cholera. The US has enough bad karma.
language is a virus from outerspace (and hearing your name is better than seeing your face)
I guess the media is too busy talking about what happened on tuesday to talk about what the government is doing to screw over it's own people. I guess getting coverage of congress singing and praying is better for ratings or something.
Seriously though, if I were a conspiracy person I might have the idea that the government had a hand in this in order to restrict on our freedoms (after all, isn't that what they like to do anyway??). It seems like the government is going to do much more harm to it's citizens than terrorists would. I guess it's time for the u.s. military to play terrorist next... although it'll be "good" according to the government. This whole thing just reminds me of a good old quote....
"Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Question everything that you've accepted without thinking.
That's right, increase your chances of getting "monitored", by taking a chance at acquiring this, none too low profile, URL, from US. Be one of the first on your block to have a url that matches what you do. Then, even if you do get deleted by the "new" "security" "police", at least you'll be able to say that you tried.
So a bunch of loons demonstrates that with just a few knives fully fueled transcontinental airplanes can be made into bombs.
So why isn't Congress funding high-speed transcontinental rail instead of passing unenforceable crypto legislation? Try crashing a supersonic train into something significant.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
we should be saying 'How can we convince our government that measures like this will be ineffective' ?
Or is it really true that we can't, for the simple reason that the attacks on NYC and D.C. provided those in power just the excuse they needed to push these things through -- the implications of that are far more terrifying than I like to think.
Damn. Now I'm starting to sound like the conspiracy theorists.
The only way to fight this is for all of us that know these measures to be wrong, to spread the word; convince everyone you know to write to their 'representatives' and say "hey, represent me! dont let this become law".
Our only strength is in numbers, people, our only weapon the truth. Let's use them. The government doesn't want to hear the truth, but they will if we shout it loud enough.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
that most of them think they're so damn important that the government will want to spy on them.
"The fact is you had better be DAMN careful about what powers you grant the government. "
The taps are only allowed for 48 hours. So quit throwing a fit.
Actually the government has been reading our information since the beginning of the interent. So if you think this is something new that's going on I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'll sell to you!
I've got nothing to worry about along with 99.99999% of the population.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
That pretty much describes the level of thinking of any government.
Achieving Reality
You already gave up most of your civil liberties to have an income tax (16th amendment). Just think about all of the information the government has on you, and all of the powers of the IRS and Federal Reserve.
Stuart Eichert
Since when does reality ever stop our government from passing silly laws? I have yet to hear that the terrorists had even used the net to coordinate the attack.
Of course, I expect to see the following sometime soon:
Washington (GL)--Today, in a move expected to save us all forever, the President has signed into law a bill that'll make it illegal to steal any commercial airliner. This will prevent the Terrorists from doing what they did on September 9, 2001 again to us.
*shakes his head sadly* Since when does making something a law stop the Bad Guys(tm) from doing what they want anyway?
Grei
This site has many nifty links.
The clinton administration sold to syria nsa grade communication devices that makes eavesdropping on terrorist impossible, appearently the bush administration is not any different. We've given 125 Million to afganistan last year, and many millions the year before.One must ask themself, Is our government sponsering terrorism and what things they stand to gain, we stand to lose?
Governments around the world are groping to maintain their powers, democracies and communists states alike, they'll kill as many of us as it takes, until they get what they want.
From the article: "The Combating Terrorism Act also expands the list of criminal offenses for which traditional, court-ordered wiretaps can be sought to explicitly include terrorism and computer hacking. "
So, they're lumping together idito script kiddies who DOS a web server and megalomaniacal psychopaths who kill thousands of innocent civilians for no reason. Something seems very wrong with this.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Whenever we can say, "yes, our country was attacked by people of this ethnic group - this group of people that looks different from you and talks with an accent", people of those ethnic group are persecuted not only by the government, but by private citizens - we lose our right to freedom from bigotry.
/. are saying - anyone seen the "To Do" list? And I walk through the halls of my high school, and I see even scarier shit. Guys say that want to join up so they can kill every Arab they can.
Example: The day of the attacks, one of my high school French teachers went to a gas station. I don't know him myself, but people I do know and respect say he's a great guy. He's also an Arab. (Anyone see where I'm going with this?)
So this guy at the gas station asks the teacher "Hey, are you and Arab?" This teacher had only been in America a few months, so he did something that was pretty unwise and said that yes, he was. The gas station attendant start yelling at the teacher "You Arabs, you're responsible for this, you should all die" and so on.
I'd say look at the internment camps in WWII, but do I even need to bother? Suffice to say that I bet there's going to be a lot of pressure in congress for increases survailance of "suspicious" individuals. And what makes one supicious? Why, being an Arab, of course! Being a Muslim - we know all these guys are wacked-out fanatics, right? Speaking Arabic - how un-American!
I have to say, I am scared to death of what this is doing to the country, and what this is doing to me. For Chrissakes, I quoted Asimov for my Junior yearbook quote: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetant". Now, look at my sig - I truly wan the bastards dead! Look at what even some people on
Man, I've really strayed from the parent topic. Sorry. But, I just want all of you to realize - we need to worry about more than our right to encryption. For many Americans, their right to walk unmolested on the streets is at risk.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Anyone here notice that the US, when compared on a global scale, tends to suck ass at math?
;)
:P
:P
;P
;)
As the lot of us have been saying for years, stopping crypto exports is meaningless. Other people can do math, and the citizens of many countries do it better than the average US citizen.
That said, using this tragedy as an excuse to get political agendas through. Duh? We've got assholes trying to sell pieces of the WTC wreckage for profit, we've got absolute SCUM trying to scam people for 'donations' for the 'victims', and then pocketing the money. Capitalism == Greed. Duh.
It is, however, better than say, taking orders from some lunatic with a hotel towel wrapped around his head and a Kalishnikov in his hand.
Why?
Because we can vote these aging bastards out of Congress and the Senate.
Oh wait! No we can't - because we're ALL TOO FREAKING BUSY TO BE BOTHERED!
Just as we can't be inconvenienced to implement stronger security measures in airports until something happens, we can't be bothered to do anything about crappy laws until they've already been passed.
Why?
"Oh, I'd vote, but then I wouldn't have been able to go to Czarbuck's for my capumochasupremelatte this afternoon!"
Feh. Maybe it's the fault of these elected officials that they don't understand how technology works, but maybe it's our fault for not educating them, and not voting them out.
If you don't like laws being passed, our government allows you the option of hitting xlock, getting off yer ass, and doing something about it. Hell, there's how many of us? We could easily form a formidible political force in terms of lobbying/bullying with votes.
But you know what? Politicians don't give a damn about you if you don't vote.
I think I'll go start the Tux party. Democrats are asses (Donkey), Republicans, well, elephant jokes, and the Green party was made fun of by stoners everywhere.
Can't think of anything bad to say about penguins.
All they'd have to do is hide no-backdoor encrypted messages within backdoor-encrypted messages, and it would be undetected unless Carnivore automatically decrypted all messages, which conflicts with what the lawmakers are saying -- "only under the oversight of a court".
As for stenography, check out this link.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
There is no evidence at all that, if this bill could stop terrorists from using strong cryptography (it won't, since the necessary algorithms have been published, some of them 20 years ago), it would have made any difference to this attack. Nor are the heightened security precautions at airports likely to make a difference -- you think there still won't be ways to smuggle through razor blades? How about ceramic-bladed knives?
What will make a difference is people on board willing to fight back. On flight 93, it sounds like the passengers _did_ finally take back the airplane, but then couldn't get someone qualified back in the pilot's seat before it hit the ground. If they'd fought initially, rather than letting 3 men with little knives take over the cockpit first... But the government would much rather have completely disarmed sheeple than citizens who might decide to stand up for their rights.
The attack could have been arranged without using any communications system more complex than plain old telephones, and without ever saying anything on the phone that wouldn't sound like ordinary family or business chatter. That is, you get the group together in some remote village in the Middle East, where CIA agents don't dare go because the locals know who doesn't belong. You agree on general plans, and a few simple and innocuous-sounding code words. Like, "The big meeting is set for 10:00 Sept 11. Get your tickets."
For an analogy: in 1941, the US Navy was decrypting practically everything the Japanese sent by coded radio, including instructions to their spies sent by diplomatic codes. We also knew that their gov't was getting very close to the point where they would _have_ to start a war with us, or else end their war in China, and probably kill themselves to apologize to the Japanese people for getting so far in over their heads. And we fully expected that they would start with a devastating surprise attack, just like in 1905.
What we didn't believe was that they would have to guts to strike so far away as Pearl Harbor. And so, three weeks before the attack when the Army and Navy sent out "war warning" messages, the general in charge of defending Hawaii "protected" his airplanes from possible sabotage by pulling them out of their camouflaged and somewhat protected shelters, lining them up in the middle of the airfield under guard, and de-fueled and de-armed them so if someone did manage to sneak in a bomb, the fire wouldn't spread. In other words, the planes were immobilized and lined up for easiest possible air attack. (For the record: there is NO evidence of traitorous action by any Japanese-American on American soil -- unlike the Germans and Italians.)
The Japanese Navy simply sent their carrier fleet to a remote location to practice for the strike, threw a cordon around so no one could leave, cut off all radio communications, allowed telephone calls (by land line inside Japan only) only for mission-critical needs and phrased so as not to give the mission away. Even if we had agents in the strike force itself (and this wasn't possible, for reasons which should be obvious), they wouldn't have been able to send a warning. Nor would a tap on the phone lines (also impossible) have revealed anything that wasn't already covered by the "war warnings."
Do a damn web search before you start insulting people, would you? It took me about two seconds for a Google search on "terrorists steganography pornography" to turn up, from ZDNet,
During the recent U.S. Embassy bombing case, several documents came to light that suggest Osama bin Laden and his associates have been using steganography to hide terrorist plans inside pornography and MP3 files that are freely distributed over the Internet.
They're referencing a USAToday story with more details, which you might read if for any reason you'd like to look like less of an ignorant twit tomorrow.
seems it's time to encrypt all my mail.
by the way: there are two ways of backdoors.
one is adding an extra password in the software. this one is very easy to detect in open source software. the other is a mathemathical backdoor. making algorythems in such a way that you know where (mathematicly) to look for the password. this one is a lot harder to detect. while a lot is us can write code and debug it, making it bug free still is hard. how many programmers are also big mathematicians that will spend time to check the used algorythems??? not that many i'm affraid.
Privacy is terrorism.
Me: Carnivore and Echelon will not work against terrorists.
Thee: Instead they are more likely to be used for commercial espionage[cut]
Agree - the European Union have evidence of this.
I am MOST ANGRY ABOUT:
the fact Government are using the deaths of these poor people and the worries of its citizens to spread more LIES.
The lie that Carnivore will protect you.
They just want it for a surveillance society.
For goodness sake - what are good American politicians doing by letting them get away with this lie?
By not telling American people the truth - they are being unpatriotic.
Trying to catch terrorists by banning cryptographic privacy is like creating
speed limit zones in front of banks to make robbers go slower...
Don't think federal agencies are dumb. They KNOW what they are doing. It's just the politicians and many people they use. And try to find more "visualizing" phrases to explain to THEM what this really means.
Regards, Fionn
Terrorists do not attack America because they hate you for having freedom, or any other propaganda give by Government. It is because of US policies, that they hate you enough to be willing to commit suicide.
For the sake of your families - do not believe the lies of the Government.
Further to my post of yesterday.
In the news today: Bin Laden British cell planned gas attack on European Parliament
Quote: "ISLAMIC terrorists based in Britain and controlled by Osama bin Laden planned a devastating attack in February on the European Parliament building in Strasbourg.
Sarin gas is an easily made chemical weapon, 26 times more deadly than cyanide. Developed during the Second World War by the Nazis, it is odourless and almost impossible to detect. Its potential for use in a large crowd was proved when Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, killed 12 people and affected 5,000 more using sarin gas on the Tokyo underground in March 1995."
Telegraph Newspaper
The authorities hide simple solution to trademark and domain name problem to abridge your free speech rights.
The US Government violate the First Amendment - WIPO.org.uk
It is far, far cheaper, easier, and more timely to defeat bad bills in committee or before they are passed thAn to attack them by lawsuits after they become law.
This bad amendment still must be debated in conference committee between the House and Senate. That is one more opportunity to get rid of the amendment. It is a shoo-in for passage as a final bill in the full House and Senate, so it won't be stopped there. Get rid of it now or forget it.
I don't know dick about crypto so I surely hope those in-the-know can make their ways to D.C. to bend some ears on Capitol Hill before this thing sees the light of day.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
So, whereas even joking about killing your classmates is totally out of the question, running around saying you want to kill Arabs is just fine?
If you don't believe me, ask that guy over there.
I was trying to condemn the bigotry, not condone it. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Pen registers and trap and trace devices are used to find out who you are communicating with. They do not disclose the contents of your communications. I don't know when the law changed, but a few years ago, law enforcement didn't even need a warrant to use these. Law enforcement simply relied on the Supreme Courts 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland.
As you know, other Congresscritters are already saying again it's time to have mandatory backdoors into encryption This will stop the terrorists because they won't be able to buy anything without a backdoor.
Right.
Bin Laden just sent a few people to pilot school for a year in preparation for a suicide mission. There's nothing keeping him from sending people to get computer science degrees specializing in cryptography and have in-house software development.
I'm informed. I'm informed of the difference between "populous" (an adjective) and "populace" (a noun).
Is it along the same lines as if the U.S. Postal Services was to open all mail , in transit , that appeared to be suspicious
The year of 2001 was supposed to be the "Year of the Great Privacy Debate." With the broadening use of digital and Internet based communications, the ability for others to intercept those communications have become great. Mobile phones are in the hands of kids calling for a ride home from school, CEOs of major corporations closing a multi-billion dollar deal and even international terrorists. Email and instant messaging (IM) are used for more than novelty and casual exchange. People and businesses conduct much of their daily communications over such mediums. In the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, with phone lines down in New York City, email and IM took over as the most available and efficient method of communicating to the world the horrors witnessed by the city. We use these mediums of communication to relay all levels of information from one person and place to another. There is no doubt that there is information floating around these communication networks that is private to individuals and some that is indeed valuable to others.
... have made ever more intrusive surveillance possible, expectations of privacy have naturally diminished."
Everyday, but especially in the wake of September 11th, many government and news agencies around the United States are searching valuable information on these communicatin networks. Today they are searching for clues as to how this event on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 took place and how it took place without warning.
One question that arises is, How did this happen without our knowledge? We spend billions of dollars in the name of National Security and yet something as dramatic and horrific as this could still happen in this country without warning. How could such a strategic and orchestrated attack take place within our boundaries without a hint of what was to come? A plan like this must have been in the planning stage for some time by the attackers and communication over phone lines (land and mobile) and the Internet were inevitable during that process.
There are many "spying" or communication "monitoring" systems set up around the globe by numerous government agencies, US and foreign. The two most widely known entities are code named Carnivore and Echelon. The organizations and agencies behind these systems use this technology to monitor communications over the phone and radio lines and also the Internet. They search and scan privately transmitted communications filtering for keywords in hopes of thwarting terrorism, drug dealing and smuggling, organized crime and anything that endangers public safety and national security.
In this, the year of the Great Privacy Debate, the question of the motives and techniques of Carnivore and Echelon have taken center stage in the public debate forum. Personal privacy is of great value to the people of this country and the world and the use of monitoring technology often violates that very right. In response to these monitoring technologies, as well as in response to security, there has been a surge in the development in privacy and security tools. With the possible death of many aspects of personal privacy in the dawn of the Internet, people demanded tools to protect their rights to communicate freely.
In the dawn of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, there is a big question that now looms over those that have fought hard against the likes of Carnivore and Echelon.
To what extent do we value personal privacy?
Assuming the attackers communicated using traditional methods (land and mobile phone lines and email), these sophisticated monitoring systems should have gotten a hold of something suggesting this attack. It was orchestrated in such a way that many people had to have been involved, which indicates the need of communication. If these attackers used "normal" means of communication, Carnivore and Echelon should have picked up on something - that is unless they had access to advanced means of communication, namely encryption devices and encryption software.
So again, the balance between personal privacy and national security is questioned. With an incident as dramatic as this, the balance has been shifted. The great privacy debate is not new to the 21st Century, it is only debated upon in a different context. Whether it be Roe vs. Wade or Echelon and Carnivore, it is a debate that lives on searching for a balance.
In his book, The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America (Random House, 2000), Jeffrey Rosen says, "The future of privacy will be determined not by the inherent nature of the Internet, but by social choices about how much privacy we as a society think it is reasonable to demand," But, he adds, "People's subjective expectations of privacy tend to reflect the amount of privacy they subjectively experience; and as advances in technology
Today, we have a new social choice to make. We will never be able to return to the same point in the debate as we were prior to this morning prior to 8AM EST September 11. Again, how much do we value personal privacy? Is it worth 10,000 to 20,000 American lives? How many are to follow with similar incidents?
As someone who was (and still hopes to be) heavily involved in the security industry and within the privacy debate, I am at an ethical fork in the road. We developed a highly secure email encryption program that allows someone to send a secure message with complete confidence that it will not be intercepted. That includes malicous hackers and thieves, but more importantly, monitoring technologies such as Carnivore and Echelon. The fork in the road was reached September 11 when these terrorists attacked the principals of our country - democracy, capitalism and military. More fundamental is the attack on our personal privacy and personal freedom. When I was developing, selling and pitching these security products, the most abundant negative response was in regards to national security. The products and services that we developed and sold could indeed be used by terrorists and law abiding citizens alike. The privacy now debate takes a different direction with respect to the realm of high-level encryption products and systems.
Personally, the scariest part of this debate is in either side of the argument. With today's incident, both sides of the debate present scary situations. To the side in favoring personal privacy (use of uncapped encryption levels, banning of such systems as Carnivore and Echelon for example), it appears that our intelligence agencies will never be able to gather enough information required to uncover terrorist attacks such as the one today. People can orchestrate these threats to national security with confidence that they are doing so in private thanks to encryption technology. Encryption historically has been used primarily for military purposes, from Caesar to Hitler.
On the other side of the debate stands the face of national security. If "Enemy of the State" conditions existed, people attempting to orchestrate these attacks would eventually leak important information leading to the demise of the plan. Without encryption software for email and VoIP and encryption hardware for analog land telephone lines, one of our many monitoring systems would surely have caught glimpse of what was to come. If we chose this direction in the fork, is it not impossible to imagine someday living a world similar the one constructed by George Orwell in his look at a futuristic society in 1984 (New American Library, 1989)?
The people of this country, citizens and elected officials, will not have to ask the question, stated above, To what extent do we value personal privacy? It was indeed correct to say this year, 2001 is the year of the Great Privacy Debate.