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?
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!--
Yes, and each time the Supreme Court has ruled on them, they've been declared unconstitutional.
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...
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?
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
A lazy man's paradise, right? You can just sit back, not worry about your Constitutional rights, because they'll all be protected for you.
That's dead wrong, and life does not just go on as usual for many people in the U.S.. You obviously need to brush up on your history, as an immediate example comes to mind: the Espionage Act of 1917. Passed in support of WW1, it horribly abridged freedom of speech. People were thrown in jail with extremely long sentences for such things as writing communist literature, and one man was beaten to death after being arrested under it. Here's the best web page I could find on it in short notice, but I recommend heading down to the library and finding a good history book.
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.
It's scope is more than before. This will be added to further bills with "limited scope" ultimately resulting in far greater scope. Any additional destruction of liberty, however small, is equal indication of the terrorist's victories.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
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.
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
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
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?
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?
Yeah.. deporting all Americans of the Muslim faith might stop it from happening again too. Of course that's a little more outlandish, but where do you draw the line? Appearantly in WWII it was somewhere just near that line of putting American citizens, some of whom were war veterans themselves, into camps as if they were no longer fit for citizenship. I don't know. At the time appearantly that seemed like a reasonable freedom to give up, so once this starts, who will stop it.. You?
Kids today. Never teach 'em history.
Perhaps you ought to spend some time reading US history, focusing on government agencies who are supposed to be involved in law enforcement and the like.
During the time J Edgar Hoover headed the FBI, which was founded to focus on interstate crime, he refused to allow it to focus on the Mafia, and pronounced on more than one occasion that there was no such thing; all those high-profile Mafia busts of the thirties and forties were by the US IRS, or by State and Local police acting at the behest of District Attornies or Governors.
What did the FBI spend its time on? Un-American activities! The FBI spent most of the Fifties looking for "Communists" while ignoring the Mafia, and most of the Civil Rights era ignoring racial crimes while harrassing and trying to shut down Martin Luther King.
There's plenty of precedent to make you scared of the BFI getting more rights, because they're more likely to come after citizens exercising their democratic rights than criminals or terrorists.
For that matter, the NSA already have a bottomless budget, Echelon, and virtually no oversight. They have nearly limitless powers. Why didn't they notice this? Why would giving the BFI more power, like the NSA, help?
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.
Sigh. As soon as the shock wore off, I began to think: How long before Feinstein, Hatch and the other power-lusters in Congress would start dancing on the graves of Tuesday's victims in order to further their own poliical agendas?
Now I have an answer. Less than 72 hours.
Write your Representative and your Senator. Compose a well-reasoned letter and urge them to NOT trample on the freedoms of the People of America. This bill is simply a facade of terrorism detection plastered over a first step in the abolishment of the 4th Amendment. It will affect only the law-abiding citizens of this country instead of the ones it is being promoted to target. Funny how Hatch and Feinstein have a history of that, isn't it?
I live in Indianapolis, and I will spend a goodly amount of time this weekend composing a letter to Senator Richard Lugar. The Representative for my District is Julia Carson. I will also write to her as well, but she has spoken out against the Bill of Rights during her campaigning, so I am afraid I will be speaking to an enemy of the American people.
ANY law that is a blow against the freedoms of the people is a success for those who would destroy freedom, including terrorists.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
References please?
Never hate too long, or too deeply, because we become what we hate.
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/
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
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