Slashdot Mirror
BBC: AOL, Earthlink Are 'Cooperating' With FBI
braddock writes: "The BBC is now reporting that 'The FBI is scouring e-mail accounts for clues as to who might have been behind the terror attacks' and that AOL and Earthlink have confirmed that they are cooperating with investigators. Earthlink maintains 'We're co-operating, but we're not installing any surveillance equipment on our networks.' AOL and Earthlink together have approximatey 36 million accounts. Scary how fast privacy can be compromised when the bulk of a country's e-mail services are centralized." I wonder which ISPs really are installing Carnivore, if not the two largest in the country. Maybe this means it's already in place?
If we all used GPG for our email transmissions, this wouldn't be a problem, would it? That is until a few months goes by and a new amendment to the constitution prohibits encryption tools of any kind... Think I'm crazy? We'll see.
It's all about sacrifice. Over 5,000 people have lost their lives because the majority of people in the U.S. have been unwilling to make sacrifices. I am ready to start making sacrifices to ensure that you and I do not meet the same fate.
What are some of those sacrifices:
1) Long waits at the airport.
2) Higher ticket prices to support better security personnel and sky marshalls
3) Less privacy to ensure law enforcement can do what they need to do
4) My life. I am willing to die for my country, my way of life and to protect civilization
At times of uncertainty and possibly war, everyone will have to make sacrifices. What are you willing to sacrifice?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
It sounds like the FBI is presenting ISPs with subpeonas, and the ISPs are not fighting them in court but are cooperating. Is this wrong in some way? If it were a case where someone had evidence that this was countervaling established precident or I'd be concerned. Buth there seems to be little evidence that there is any abuse at present.
Much more of a concern would be the call by Att. Gen. Ashcroft to rewrite wiretap laws.
That said, work on the assumption that you are being observed. If you want to encrypt data, do so - you may have reason to. If you want to use gpg for email, you probably have good reason to do that as well.
Its going to be at least a year until society really and actually starts thinking about civil liberties again - right now you can forget about it.
From what I've heard, at best the FBI's infamous surveillance equipment is an x86 system, and most likely won't have more than 8 cpus in it (if that).
The kind of firepower that a major ISP can throw at a problem of this nature can include 64-cpu Sun Enterprise class computers with gigabit ethernet cards connected to every mail network that the ISP has.
If said ISP is commited to not having other people's machines connected to it's internal networks, the ISP can provide a lot heavier duty monitoring firepower than anyone else.
I don't know what is more scary. That we could be at the beggining of World War III where the terrorists want us to be. Or that terrorists will launch more attacks what they certainly want to do. Or that a lot of politicians now will want to implement stricter laws what the terrorists will see as a sign of victory. Our clever politicians make a big show but change nothing.
And mostly everybody seems to refuse to REALLY THINK about what the hell made all this happen. It's surely not just a big bank account and some mislead religious fanatism. That's just the surface. There is MUCH MUCH more to it.
The system guys behind these large ISP's are *gasp* slashdotters too.
No one wants carnivore on their system. From the information I know (loosely collected from over the internet and slashdot posts), the concerns are that it could too easily gain information from other users. To me carnivore sounds like an overglorified packet sniifer. (Of course we will really never know until the code is released to those who can make an honest assessment)
Earthlink cooperates with the FBI all of the time on warrants. Earthlink has its own software that will serve the needs of the FBI. Thus there is no need for carnivore. So in the end, the FBI's information is gleaned and those communications of customers not cited in the warrant are kept private.
No one is saying, come in, sniff the network for those Arab bastards. Alot of people share the same values as yourselfs.
This is not the end of civil liberties.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
The difference between this "war" we seem to be in now and the wars previously mentioned is that the current war does not have a defined enemy. Indeed, we may be getting ourselves into a fight against Hydra - every terrorist we take down is replaced by three more. In effect, this is a "war" that may never end.
What is most disturbing is that members of congress and the president and other government types are saying that "we must defend freedom" as they attempt to destroy it.
There are broader issues at risk here too...a writer friend of mine, Harvey Ardman, just sent the following and I thought it was worth sharing:
Who are the combatants in this war?
On the one side, you have the secular, multi-ethnic Western nations, dedicated to progress, as they define it, embracing technology and change, extolling prosperity and materialism, tolerating differences, promoting freedom of speech and freedom of choice, and bent on imposing their forms of commerce, government, philosophy and even religion on the rest of the world--all in a spirit of good will, of course.
On the other, you have fundamentalist religion, most particularly Islam fundamentalism but not limited to it. These people despise what the Western nations stand for and fear that their beliefs and their world cannot survive the secular tsunami. Let me say this again: they believe their spiritual survival is at stake.
When Osama Ben Laden saw American troops operating in Saudi Arabia, his homeland, during the Gulf War, he was not only furious, he was afraid--afraid for his culture, his religion, his social beliefs. He saw this degraded culture, this wave of infidels, from his point of view, threatening everything that he loved and believed in.
This, by the way, is why the Arabs continue to attack Israel, and to speak of it with loathing. It is a secular state in a fundamentalist world. It is a western bastion, even a Trojan horse. This is why the Arabs have NEVER attacked any Israeli religious targets. It is not the religion that bothers them. It is the lack of religion. It is the secular Israel that offends, not the Jewish one.
There is a key difference between the combatants. The secular westerners believe, in a vague and comfortable way, that their way of life is desirable and superior to the lives and values of the fundamentalists. They are intellectually and philosophically committed to their beliefs. The fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe in their cause with every molecule of their bodies. Ours is a reasoned, reasonable belief. Theirs is fanatic.
How can we prevail over this level of belief, especially since we cannot match it. How can we outlast such passion? Well, I don't believe that we can win the battle militarily, although we might be able to strip the terrorists of most of their power, at least for awhile.
What's needed here, I believe, is both a military and a social war. The military war must be fought against identifiable terrorists. The social war must be fought against poverty, inequality and famine--for these are the seeds of fundamentalism, this is the food of fanaticism.
It is not much of a sacrifice for us to fight that military war. We're good at that. We secretly enjoy it. To fight the social war, however, we must find new reserves within us. We must make genuine sacrifices, sacrifices to which we are unaccustomed. We must give not as we gave during World War II, but as we gave afterward. I'm talking about the Marshall Plan, which resurrected Europe from the ashes of war.
On the surface, the Marshall plan--billions in relief for Europe--was a generous act. But of course self interest was involved, in at least three ways. First, we were desperate to keep Western Europe out of Soviet control. Second, we had pressing economic reasons to make sure Europe became strong and prosperous again. The people of Europe were our best customers. Finally, the values of Western Europe were the same as ours. Supporting them strengthened us.
We have a self-interest in undertaking similar programs for the 3rd world. It is the only way we can keep these people from fanatic fundamentalism. It is the only way we can hope to once and for all defeat terrorism. We must reduce the difference between the haves and the have-nots. We must end abject poverty at the very least.
Here's what makes the socialwar so difficult: We will be sorely tempted--because we strongly believe in our values---to attempt to impose them on those we aid. We will demand they embrace democracy?. We will demand they allow freedom of speech and yes, religion? Will we insist that they become as secular as we are? And if we do, will we just be creating more Osama Ben Ladens?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that the social war is much more complicated than the military one. And it is also more important, because no military victory is forever, in the long run of history. No conversion at the point of a gun is a genuine one. Vengeance always leads to revenge.
We need to change minds more than we need to kill terrorists. It will not be easy. I hope we have the stomach for it.
/rr
The biggest threat we face right now is the civil rights of Americans of Arab descent in the United States.
One of the goals of the terrorist activities is to make the Western Democracies strike out against Arabs and make it a clear us vs. them scenario by which they can gain more support in the Middle East.
By using deep cover agents, they have made a real step towards that goal. Now every Arab in the United States can be considered a potential suspect. Anti-Arab sentiment and violence is already on a serious rise as it is.
And either through violence, or harassment, or over-scrutinization by the count-ordered emergency measures above, it is going to be a very hard time for this portion of the US population. The footage from Chicago, for example, was just chilling.
We all need to remember that we are Americans, and as Americans, we are all the targets of this terrorism. The suicide bombers did not check to see if there were any Muslims in the WTC before they attacked it. We are all in this together, and the worst--and most likel--thing we can do to help them win is turn on ourselves.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
In fact, this has probably increased society's paranoia about "hackers/crackers", the internet, and electronic commerce. It certainly hasn't. If it had, people would be against encryption restrictions, instead of suddenly supporting them. One of the most serious negative effects of encryption restrictions is that it harms computer security. Primarily by making secure authentication impossible.
And would you feel the same way if your parents/spouse/child were suddenly picked up by the FBI and sent to a detention camp? And if this were done based on an anonymous tip from a neighbor with a grudge? And if this were done under a sealed warrant and you had no right to hire an attorney to defend against this? This happened during WWII. It happened to my grandmother (a US citizen of German ancestry for 20 years at the time. The details including the neighbor with a grudge were revealed 40 years after the fact through a FOIA request.)
You people who advocate suspending civil liberties are the most dangerous terrorists of them all. More people have been murdered by governments in the name of "national security" than have been killed in all terrorist acts put together.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I mean if you write an e-mail from one address acquired under a fake name and fake userID that you have at a provider which you only access from an account that you have with *another* provider, which you pay by credit card registered to your fake identity (you know like use "John Smith" instead "Osama bin Laden"). Then the e-mails consist of:
...."
... BUT the seeminly boring messages when accumulated over a period of 6 weeks reveal (in every 4th word if ROT13'ed and then utransliterated twice from English to Cyrillic/Russian and then again to Arabic) a series of numbers. The numbers of course contain all the "instructions". Add more layers as needed: communicate in hard to understand dialects, etc. Another cool thing to do is to create an entire fake network of "communicators" who may or may not be communicating in code. Plant lots of fake information, etc.
...
"Do you rmember the time me and your nieces went to the park - about 3 years ago. I think you have 4 nieces right? Well I remember I bought each one an ice cream
blah blah blah
How can any of this be stopped by snooping or banning cryptography? If one wants to prevent terrorism on aircraft it would be much more effective to ban air travel than to "crack down on the Internet". The country can probably function quite well without air travel (yes it can) - as long as the Internet is working well!
Carnivore and its ilk seems like yet another silly techno-fix to the lack of real intelligence information in the CIA, FBI and NSA. With no contacts on the ground and no reliable information these agencies instead decide to spy on the e-mail of their own citizens. And elected representatives seem to think it's OK since the Internet was how the terrorists communicated: in the eyes of legislators what evil will the Internet be responsible for next? I mean Charles Manson used the postal system for goodness sake