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 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.
It is easy to throw away the 4th Amend. in a state of fear and/or rage. It remains my hope that rational minds will prevail...sadly, while the individual may be rational, the mob tends to act with passion.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Overall, it is worth keeping in mind that it was hate and revenge that created this tragedy and that to give way to hate and revenge is to let this tragedy demean and lessen us. Understanding something this massive and monstrous will take a long time, and the dialogue we will engage in about this will, eventually, be healthy and worthwhile. The trick is to not fall into the trap of knee-jerk "reactive" action.
/rr
I can just imagine the FBI's sophisticated search techniques:
/bin/Laden
/usa
"Search for Arabic names or the word Allah and turn it over to us"
Oh well.
rm -rf
fsck -a
They have authority, although the authority seems a bit broad. I mean come on, how ofen is the FBI going though the phone company logs of a suspect? You don't hear slashdot complaining when at&t and version are cooperating with a legal sopena?
But it doen underscore the need for encryption and the fact that even you ISP cannot be trusted. We need commercial security aware companies to provide SSL'ed smtp servers because even GPG/PGP does not prevent DCS1000 from figuring out who you are communicating with.
I would love to have ALL logs an ISP keeps be encrypted with my public key, that way the govenment cannot make use of the data without my authority.
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.
The full article is at= /news/2001/09/16/wbin116.xml
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml
Extract:
"Guys...we are at war. The normal rules do not count in war. In times of war the needs of the many outweigh privacy arguments."
That is what happened during the (US) Civil War. After the war ended, the balance between government and Constitutional rights was restored to (more or less) what it had been before.
Then came the Great War (WWI). Again the "normal rules" were "suspended". But after that war the normal balance was never really restored, and the beginnings of the National Security State were first seen. And so on through WWII, Korean War, and Cold War.
I have always been a pretty strict constitutional libertarian, willing to accept some risks to live in a free society. Obviously such a position will be hard to defend now (in fact, I wonder if I am taking some risk by writing this).
So I think that the idea of Constitutional freedom will be greatly reduced in the United States in the next few years, and will never be restored. Nor do I think that anyone will object too much about it. But let's not forget what we will lose in the process.
sPh
On your point 4- I'm waiting for the callup. Is your willingness simply rhetorical, like most peoples' desire for revenge, or practical?
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
the fbi is going after specific account information associated with specific individuals, not the general public. they are going to ISPs WITH search warrants, not just barging in and asking for arbtrary information.
In essence, they are only moving forward with normal police work and nothing else. They are legal in their use of search warrants, and they are going after specific information.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
The keyword there is 'essential liberty'. Which liberties are essential? life? speech? movement? privacy? How much privacy is essential? How much of the freedom to travel is essential? I dunno.
sorry but in no way, shape, or form do I agree that we need to goto war to eliminate this problem, nor do I feel that I should have to give up my privacy in communication when I did nothing wrong.
I want to see heavy sanctions placed on Afghanistan for their lack of serious cooperation but I do NOT feel that endangering the lives of many military personell is in any way better than what these assholes did to our civilians...
I am most certainly willing to give up short line waits, cheap airfare, etc but my privacy? NO WAY.
... for now.
It's not that the desire is so out of place, as worry as to how far this will go. What seems urgent now becomes convenient becomes standard becomes routine becomes indispensable. And then we see the FBI saying, "Well, drugs kill thousands of Americans each year. So do drunk drivers. And anyone manipulating the market disrupts the economy and impacts millions. And those who associate with anyone who is eventually linked to any of these must be suspect themselves..."
Don't let the terrorists win! Don't sanction the uprooting of fundamental liberties for the impression of action and the illusion of safety. What is most desired by these despicable people is exactly that we become them, that we give up on three centuries of open and free government.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Paraphrased, but essentially the viewpoint is that encryption crackdowns won't affect the average citizen. So there you have it.
So long as the "average citizen" is not an employee or customer of the businesses this kind of thing will hurt. The number of terrorists it will catch is likely to be zero. Indeed by concentrating on high tech things it may well be harder to catch terrorists in future.
The statement says they're cooperating with investigators. That statement is a lot broader than "complying with the subpeona". Given the fact that national and even international security is at stake, maybe we they're justified in cooperating and we're overreacting. If an invasion of privacy becomes par for the course, on the other hand, then we've lost too many freedoms.
All these people whining about their precious privacy. What have they got to hide? What are they so worried about? If they're innocent then they have nothing to fear.
They may be innocent but "politically incorrect", which has certainly happened in recent history with the likes of the FBI. Indeed the FBI activly ignored organised crime for a portion of its history.
And isn't Carnivore or (DCS1000 or whatever) only supposed to examine email headers?
My understanding is that Carnivore can do two things. Pen Register and Tap and Trace. Pen Register can be done without a warrant, and only records from and to information. Tap and Trace, with a warrant, will capture the contents of the email. IIRC, it also works on other traffic in the same way. Pen Register capturing the host, destination, and URL, and Tap and Trace capturing everything.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Bravo. I hope when the call comes, you retain your civic-mindedness. But I am struck by #4 of your willing sacrifices:
Protect civilization? By sacrificing all that is good and true in it? By making a mockery of the sacrifice of thousands before you? By abandoning the principles that have made this nation the largest free, open, and lawful society in the history of humanity? I'm not sure exactly what you think you'll be "protecting" as you support calls for abridging traditional freedoms. Now is exactly the time to worry about civil liberties and the natural tendency to curtail them. Our freedoms are precisely what makes "us" different from "them", and it would be horrible if we allow these terrorists to succeed because we are too mad or too scared to remember our proud heritage of the rule of law.
I am willing to sacrifice time and treasure. I am willing to risk the lives of those sworn to protect the United States, and I am willing to serve if called. I am willing to sacrifice convenience and comfort.
And I am willing to sacrifice the entirely-reasonable but utterly dangerous lust for vengeance that could drive us more toward what we fight than what we are. I am willing to sacrifice a little safety in preservation of our traditional freedoms and the rule of law.
Are you?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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
And personally, I can't imagine anyone who was in those buildings, even privacy advocates, arguing against limited monitoring for the foreseeable future. If terrorist militant plans to kill 5,000 people could be averted by a simple keyword search, I'd gladly "trade-in" some of my freedom.
Of course law enforcement agencies want to search for clues in e-mail and I would be very angry, as an American, if AOL, Earthlink, or other ISPs were anything less than cooperative with reasonable requests.
Choose your battles wisely. An investigation into the worst act of terrorism in our nation's history is not the same thing as Carnivore systematically, but without specific purpose, examining every e-mail that goes through an ISP.
If you are transmitting data of a sensitive nature, encrypt it. If you have sent unencrypted e-mail indicating your involvement in criminal activity, then you should be arrested -- for stupidity!
..I don't think Osama used America Online...
Maybe he did. That could explain why he hates America.
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.
We did declare war. Congress passed a War Powers Act: "...the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks...".
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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
I want to see heavy sanctions placed on Afghanistan for their lack of serious cooperation but I do NOT feel that endangering the lives of many military personell is in any way better than what these assholes did to our civilians...
Well, I guess it's a good thing that others are willing to fight for your peace, freedom and liberty.
You can't sanction away terrorism when the terrorists are flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers. I thought Colin Powell said something interesting this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The scale of their attacks is limited only by the technology they have available." After this week, you aren't convinced this is true? Will it take a nuke going off before you're convinced that it just might be time to take care of this problem once and for all?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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
I don't care if the FBI wants to read through my love poetry
You may not care now, but what about in 5 years when they are still doing it. Instead of Terrorists, what if the are looking for Tax Evaders, would you care then ? The problem with giving up freedom is we will never get it back and just because the current administration CLAIM they will not abuse the power, how about the next one ? What if the next President after Bush is Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, they will be scanning our email to find out who wasn't Christian and who might be Gay, would that be okay with you ?
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Now is exactly the time to worry about civil liberties and the natural tendency to curtail them.
You no nothing of sacrifice. Why don't you take a look at your grandparent's generation and what they sacrificed so that you we have freedom and liberty today. It's not just mamby-pamby speech restrictions (although they had those), we're talking travel restrictions, food restrictions. Freakin' automobile factories became airplane factories!
Let me make a suggestion, and I mean this seriously to anyone who hasn't really looked into it: pick a few books about World War II. You might think you understand the prices that have been paid by our past generations, but I guarantee you don't or you wouldn't have posted this message.
Civil liberties don't mean a damn if we have people bent on destroying us. I quoted this in another post, but I think it bears repeating. Colin Powell said something interesting this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists do not care how many people they kill. The scale of their attacks is limited only by their technology." Is it going to take a nuke in New York before you think there are something things that just might be more important at this time?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Why is it that specifically, in "times of war", the rights of the populace are negated by the "needs of the many"? Why not in "times of crime" or "times of dissidence"? Certainly, it would be beneficial to the "needs of the many" for the FBI to use Carnivore and Echelon in more domestic crime, should it net them a criminal conviction. Catching serial killers or convicting pimps or drug lords would certainly justify negation of privacy accross the country. It would certainly serve the "needs of the many".
The problem with your argument in the context of American politics is that your statement is a staunchly utilitarian one. If America were utilitarian, it wouldn't need any rights at all. It would allow the government to snoop around in its citizens' personal business in whatever way served the greater good. However, America is not based on any sort of utilitarian principle, but rather the exact opposite, rights theory. Rights are not something one can choose "when it's convenient". They are allocated to us solely on the bases that we are thinking, breathing human beings. The government, furthermore, is the last body which should be able to choose, whenever it seems convenient, to wave any one of our rights for "the good of the many".
If you're a utilitarian, then the needs of the many always outweight the rights of the individual, and our government need only decide at what level and under what circumstances it no longer has to concern itself with those rights.
However, America isn't a police state (yet) and it would probably be best if it stuck to the rights theory expounded on by its forefathers rather than, in times of trouble, deciding that whether or not Americans actually have any rights is a matter of opinion on the part of the government.
If "freedom is under attack" as the jingoists have phrased it, and "freedom" is our real concern, negating the rights of the populace is the most tragically ironic response to this massacre that I could possibly imagine.
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.
Just up on Ananova:m enu=news.usterrorattacks
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_400036.html?
Well, the whole question of "what constitutes declaring war" has been a debate in the US for a long time. The constitution says that congress has the power to declare war, so my personal feeling is that if congress passes a war powers act authorizing war (particularly when they specifically use the word "war"), then they have pretty much declared it.
I don't think we've had any new recent legal definitions, but if you have something, post a link.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Although no news services are going into great detail about what communication was going on, it sounds like very little electronic communication was actually happening and instead the terrorists were actually meeting face to face and communicating privately that way. Perhaps we should ban meeting in the park instead...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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
opinions are like assholes.
The willingness of the terrorists to die in the commission of their attacks isn't a strength, it's a weakness. The willingness to die restricts potential recruits to a relatively small segment of the population. As far as detection goes, the situation is far better than in the 70s when people who looked like Japanese tourists could suddenly pull automatic weapons out of their bags as happened at Tel Aviv's Lod Airport in May 1972 at the cost of 24 lives. Radical Marxism backed by covert support from Easter bloc intelligence agencies is no longer turning out as many terrorists with different nationalities as Germany did with Baader-Meinhof or Venezuela did with Carlos the Jackal. Furthermore in the 1970s members of attacking terrorist teams often were female such as Leila Khaled.
Trying to track the terrorists back to their native lands is the United States weakness and their strength. On the other hand, their operating on United States soil should be their weakness and our strength. The suspicious eyes and mouths willing to inform the authorities of any suspicious activity should accompany them wherever they go.
Suicide attackers have to be kept in a constant state of psychological preparedness. They have to travel together in at least pairs because they have to have reinforcement of the need for them to die. Often their support comes from the only people they can trust, relatives.
In short, suicide attackers who are foreign nationals from a distinct ethnic group are the perfect targets for proactive profiling. The question is whether the people, the intelligence agencies, the leadership, and the judicial system of the United States are going to be willing to make the necessary painful decisions. To easily separate suspects from nonsuspects, reducing the amount of work by two orders of magnitude, the people will have to accept a comprehensive national database with easy means of checking attributes such as fingerprints, voice, DNA, photographs. The United States does have a population of millions of loyal citizens of Middle Eastern descent. (No suspected hijackers or accomplices born in the United States have been identified so far.) Some means must be found to quickly distinguish them from foreign nationals so that they can efficiently exercise their rights as citizens.
Intelligence agencies must find the means to share information and break the bonds of bureaucratic inertia. Analyses such as Alexander B. Calahan's apply far beyond how to organize assassination teams, they apply equally to how to organize terrorism prevention teams. It is becoming clear that United States intelligence agencies had all the clues needed to prevent the attack. The WTC had been a previous target by the same groups, there had been an earlier plot to hijack a large number of airplanes, two hijackers were under watch by the FBI. What are needed are anti-terrorism units organized like special forces units who are allowed the initiative and the time to follow-up leads and build complete dossiers on suspects and the people they interact with.
Of course for this to happen the leadership and especially the courts have to get out of the way. The courts have to recognize that there has to be a distinction between the rights of citizens and the rights of foreign nationals, especially when there is a clearly demonstrated danger that a segment of foreign nationals is plotting to inflict massive terrorist attacks on the nation.
Carnivore, Echelon are simply manifestations of the truth that supply will increase to meet demand. We are no longer talking about hypotheticals. Foreign nationals are now plotting acts of mass terrorism on United States soil that have the potential to claim 50,000+ lives a strike. Something has to be done and something will be done.
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
Where in the Constitution does it say that law enforcement cannot request information from ISPs? Or do you have another source of "fundamental liberties" that I am unaware of? The bill of rights gave us protection from "unreasonable search and seizure" of our persons, papers and property but also provides the exception in the case of probable cause of law breaking.
That said, I don't think that the terrorist most want us to give up on our form of government, more likely they want us to stay the heck out of their part of the world.
If everyone is now willing to trade their liberties for more perceived safety, the terrorists will succeed in their "attack against the free countries of the world", not by destroying the countries, but by making those countries destroy their freedom.
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
According to La Repubblica, this "memo" dates from October 20, 2000. They don't say how they got it -- I couldn't find the complete text online, but another part is in "Jeff"'s guilty plea in "USA v. Ali Mohamed", dated the same day.
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
Security is not our problem. The airlines have decided it is OK to trust your security to $5.50 an hour security guards, and WE SHOULD MAKE THE SACRIFICE ? The airlines make 300% of each ticket, and they cannot be 'bother' to maintain a decent security system, or even hire decent employees to handle baggage. The number of rip-offs and scams that go down in an airport PROVE THAT. If the Fed would just HOLD the airlines to the existing standards and the FINE them enough MONEY to make it worth while instead of a handslap, things would be VERY different NOW. Bottom line if the airlines adhered to existing secuirity the terrorists would NOT HAVE GOTTEN KNIVES ON BOARD.
#1 long waits ??, beyond the screwing we get now as the airline oversells seats and tries to shuffle people around at the last minute, a HUGE security hole.
#2 Higher ticket proces ? beyond the 300% profit they make per person now, How about the airlines just live up to the agreements they have already made.
#3 Less Privacy, i already am required to provide valid ID prior to getting on a plane, and that ID must match the name/id of the person reserving the ticket.
#4 My Life. I TOO am willing to die to protect my Family, and MY FREEDOM, but I refuse to go to war for a corporations's profits. When the corp's begin to take some responsibilty for the messes they creat instead of expecting Uncle Sam to re-write the laws for them, or throw his weight around so they can manuever some 3rd world country into a recievership economy. In the meantime all I can offer is my deepest sympathy for those affected by the bombing, and the hope that we can find the responsible ones.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
By the way, I also didn't emerge from the mexican standoff with Russia just to be pushed around by some sandy little butthole who uses his country's civilians as a human shield.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hey,
I don't think Osama used America Online
From the article:
Other bin Laden agents make for the internet cafes that have sprung up in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar. They use the most common service providers, all of them American, and refer to each other and to bin Laden himself by their first names. In the welter of e-mail traffic their messages go unnoticed.
Maybe AOL is the ISP that provides service to the cybercafes.
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
AOL and Earthlink: So easy to use and so far away, no number it's #1 for Afghan terrorists!
Seriously though, how does this help? Chances are, Bin Laden doesn't use e-mail, and if he does, the probability is that he doesn't use America Online or Earthlink. Maybe he uses some sort of Afghan ISP; oh wait, the Taliban banned the Internet! Oops.
It would sound like he uses a man on a camel with encrypted computer disks or paper messages. By my guesses, the FBI is pretty much wasting their time...
Do you like German cars?
a. tax evaders are _BREAKING THE LAW_ if this helps catch them, great.
So as long as I don't have anything to hide I have nothing to worry about ? Is that what you are saying ? There are alot of things which are not illegal, but you also would not want the Government to know about just simply because it is none of anyone elses business.
b. if jerry fallwell becomes president, i'll eat my computer.
This is not as far fetched as you think, GW is only about a minute left of Fallwell.
c. if jerry fallwell (or any of his ilk) becomes president, it's not like he's all of a sudden the great dictator of the united states. you forget
congress. the supreme court. separation of powers. 8th grade govenment class anyone?
By reducing privacy and freedom of speech, GW and Congress will have already laid all the ground work.
d. doing what you describe (looking for non-Christians, gays, etc) with the internet would itself be illegal because it is discriminatory. and if the presidnet or anyone else was caught doing that, they'd be out of office faster than you can say impeachment.
Looking for people who are Moslum and have opposing political views is somehow NOT discriminatory ?
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Notify the police on the radio, land safely at the nearest airport, and let the police deal with the terrorists. Note the lack of destroyed skyscapers in this scenario?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Only the USA uses month/day.
Most ISO compliant nations use day/month, so 11/9/2001 means essentially nothing.
I wouldn't look to closely at the dates.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Which is what we did in Viet Nam. (Korea was a "police action". Heh.) That does not mean that we formally declared war. For one thing, read your own post - who did we declare war on? All that was done was allocate funds. The president is Commander-in-Chief, and head of the Executive Branch of the government, and as such, any of them can use whatever force they want in any way. It doesn't take Congress' approval to do so, and in American history, there have been cases of the president and the Congress being at odds over such issues.
The check and balance is that Congress can reallocate funds and/or impeach the president. Formal declaration of war is done by Congress, and the check and balance on that side is that the president in office can say "Yes, very good. You've declared war. But the armed services aren't going to do anything'.
Not declaring war is a nice political move, and is why Congress gave Bush $40 billion when he asked for $20 billion for military funding. That way, every Representative and Senator can say "I voted so that the $20 billion for relief would go out, not for the $20 billion for this war that my voters don't like now". It's hard to play both sides in a stark simple vote to declare war.
Bringing it back to subject, that ambiguity allows "emergency investigations" in peacetime... right now, the FBI are looking for terrorists in AOL. When are they going to look through your home computer as a matter of routine when someone at your place of work embezzels $5,000?
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
i agree with you in some ways. I highly doubt that companies would lie on behalf of their government. Knowing corporate america, if one person were to say "The FBI made us say such-and-such," that would not look good, and the FBI would then be in a LOT of trouble. Knowing what ISPs have carnivore and which dont is something that's probably being guarded. But by having these companies say that "we have declined and FBI request to install wire tapping equipment" that tells us who DOESNT have Carnivore installed. It also leaves speculation that there are ISPs out there that have not been approached by the FBI.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Don Marti's take on a pertinent issue.
And if your doing file logging, 20010911 is easier to parse.
Do we have any Admins from Earthlink or AOL who are /. users? Lets hear the story from the horses mouth.
.wav files.
/. users.
Currently at work, the FBI is scanning cell phones at an extended rate, we cant even take the machines down for maintenance.
Not to worry thou.
1. FBI still has to provide a search warrent and phone number to record in
2. They use only 100mbit connection, so they cant physically record every call.
3. People who run the systems are
-
We are drowning in information and starved for knowledge. - Unknown
This is the ultimate in no-win situations for ISPs. If they refused to cooperate, you can sure as hell bet that it'd draw not only the ire of the US Government, but of the People--including some of their customers--who are blinded by
rage and indignation at this time. Hardly a few hours went by before black-hearted politicans and "law-enforcement" agencies were vying to see who could blaspheme the dead the most by
co-opting a tragedy for their political gain. Not a day later, you had Republican Congressmen coming out and saying, "This is why we need a missile defense system." (Fuck you! Show me a missile defense system that would stop a suicidal hijacker.) But the People, as a whole, aren't outraged by these reprehensible actions because we're all seeing red, and little else.
Rights and respect are in the peripherial vision. Anything that sounds like an upbraid to the terrorists is now okay. So what is an ISP to do when the Feds come knocking and say, "Let us look at your traffic?" Saying no would make for the biggest PR massacre in the history of Capitalism. The only option is to abandon protection of user rights, which is not something most ISPs look forward to doing.
On the prostitution of the missile defense system by Republican Congressmen on the same day as this tragedy: this is shameful. It doesn't matter whether you believe missile defense will work/should be bought/whatever. That's not the point. Using the occasion of mass murder to politick should be absolutely unacceptable.
It's no different than if someone had come out and said, "This is why we should not be involved in the Middle East." I was hoping that for at least 24 hours, we could leave politics by the wayside. If anything was to be done that day concerning policy, it should have been precisely what was done: review what went wrong and
how to fix it.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that it is: America is stuck in a reactionary rut. We're relegated to reacting rather than forging our own path for the time being. For AOL and Earthlink and many others, the obvious problem arises: when can you make a stand on the principles of this country when they directly oppose the republic's bloodlust? I can't blame AOL or Earthlink for this move. They're stuck in a no-win situation. Someone, somewhere, will hopefully make the
very public stand on issues when the climate is more appropriate and drag our enraged People out of their rut and back into secular (meaning: worldly) thinking. But for now, the heat is too stifling.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
Indeed, but it also comes down to that we're not dealing with complete idiots here. Er..perhaps I'll clarify. The terrorists aren't idiots. I have no doubt that the people running AOL and EarthLink are probobly fools, but that's just a personal opinion. Anyway. Yeah. I don't think people are going to plan an attack on the US and email eachother back and forth with;
OBL: So, this terrorism thing under way as planned?
Person2: yup! hijacking plans are all ready!
OBL: Great! So you using bombs or knives?
Person2: Knives! but we'll pretend there's a bomb!
OBL: Pentagon too right?!
Person2: You betcha boss!
... you get my drift.
-bk
My lips may promise, but my heart is a whore.
Times like this, I'm glad I run my own local mail server.
I think nukes are on the way in this mess....check this out from www.drudgereport.com:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
Hmmm. I sort of think the 20+ books I've read over the course of the past few years -- about WWII, the political aspects leading up to it and following it, the restrictions during and following it, and the legal issues raised -- might qualify me just a little to speak on this, at least as an informed lay person.
Don't pull your sanctimonious crap on me. Just because I don't agree with your position doesn't mean I am ignorant, any more than your disagreeing with me makes you so. Indeed, I have read avidly and thoroughly and have pondered much about both WW II and the impact terrorism has on democracies. I'd been thinking about it long before Sep 11. And I guess I would say that anyone who posted your message demonstrates little true understanding of the fragility and value of the American experiment.
Civil liberties mean "a damn" especially at a time like this, when legitimate fears lead people to call for their erosion. Unlike every knee-jerk reactionary, I have faith in America that we can -- and will -- work out a way to protect our nation and our fundamental liberties. I have faith that a nation can protect its citizens within the rule of law. I have faith that the American spirit can triumph over the darkness that illuminates the hearts of the terrorists and over the fear that clouds the hearts of citizens.
We are stronger than that. We are smarter than that. We are better than that.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Fair enough. Truth be told, the cooperation of the ISPs is not what worries me, nor what I meant to rail against. They are, at least, conforming to accepted usages of law. I am much more worried by, say, the Senate bill that expanded the validity of warrantless searches and that allows the FBI or the Justice Dept to cloak anything and everything behind an unbreachable wall of "potential threat to national security". I firmly believed judicial oversight is necessary.
Right now, everyone's pulling together and inquiries are legitimate. How long, though, will it be before some FBI bureaucrat slips up? How long will he resist the temptation to bury everything under the National Security fence?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
For the sake of your families - be prepared.
/. before:
As I explained on
IT IS ALL A LIE
Carnivore and Echelon will not work against terrorists.
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.
***
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 [telegraph.co.uk]
***
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
The Senate bill you are talking about (not sure which one) would be a far more valid criticism of the government than the issue of the FBI going after ISPs. Thanks for bringing it up.
/. would investigate bills like the ones you mention... if not them, someone else maybe.
I wish
So what high-end tricks are available to make the grep process not be I/O-bound? Enquiring minds want to know! The only thing I could imagine would involving a separate thread that caches the whole the thing in "real time" to the memory while the grep process looks through memory. Even then, you'd be waiting on that cache, wouldn't you?
My journal has hot
Thursday (Fri?) the US Senate passed the "Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001"
Early Friday. It was a rider on the spending bill.
Still have to pass the House (AFAIK) but, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE ABOUT THIS!
Senator Leahy (chair of the Judiciary Committee) raised the issue that it's overbroad. Given that it was an amendment to a spending bill for $40 billion for dealing with terrorism domestically, it's not exactly a surprise that it was passed like beer through a college student.
I actually posted my own uninformed analysis of the amendment here on slashdot.
Follow the news.
I do try to remain clueful, especially where online rights are concerned. If my wife and I both die, the EFF and CDT are in for six figure paydays. S'matter of fact, I first mused on this Tuesday evening. Be particularly mindful of my wry comment "We promise we won't wiretap anyone without a magistrate's approval who doesn't really, really, REALLY deserve it." I hate being right sometimes...
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Don't forget that regular backups are done so that no mail is lost in an emergency situation. Most of these are incremental (in a good backup plan). The likelihood is high that AOL could reconstruct the state of a server on any given date with reasonable accuracy.
What surprises me is that anyone would bother with this. Encryption tools are readily available that would completely protect this information in transit. At best they can analyze who got mail from who and use that to obtain search warrants for newer, less certain suspects. Normally, you can't just use warrants to go on fishing expiditions like this, but then this is "war" so who knows...
I do not have a signature
What is getting ramrodded through? Let's see... People are actually anxious to spend Social Security money on defense. Congress just passed a resolution that makes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution look restrictive. We're going to skip the flip-flop to putting 100k teachers in the schools with this budget and stick with putting 100k cops on the streets for quite some time. Look at what Ashcroft wants to do with wiretap laws, and look at what is happening to our email. I shudder to think of what the budget is going to look like this year- and don't think that W isn't going to have some big military op going on next september- he's going to need leverage with next year's budget.
Remember; it is now unpatriotic to question the simpleton-in-chief. Our freedoms are what make the country so strong. Giving them up is worse than defeat by these terrorists- it sets us up for defeat not just in this instance, but in every crisis we face in the future. A country that refuses to think ends up making collossally stupid mistakes.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
1 - Defeat keyword searches. The Feds can't possibly read everyone's email. Presumably they store the text and then do giant keyword/keyphrase searches using some clever code. So, send your text as a image file (PNG/TIFF/JPG etc). Simply write it on a text editor and then either do a screen grab or import it into something like Gimp. The guy at the other end can read it without needing any crypto software, but the Fed's keyword tracker will skip straight over it. Worried that they have OCR? Simple: Use cursive fonts and keep changing them; rotate the text to a funny angle; use patterned backgrounds.
2 - Load up their decrypt machines - Let's assume that they have some big hardware which tries to decrypt any binary files that they don't understand. So, give it something to chew on. Grab 50K from /dev/random and email it to a friend. Then he can send some of his entropy back again. We have lots of bright people here on /., presumably someone could come up with a little script to automate this? Perhaps it could randomly choose words from /usr/share/dict/words to put in the subject line.
It's going to take a long time for them to word a law which makes these activities illegal
I've got no child pornography to worry about, and If the FBI, or whatever agency wanted in, asked I'd be happy to give them access, but I DO object to MY ISP providing access without #1 legal documentation, #2 my permission.
Now I could not find anywhere wether a writ was issued in this instance or not so this may all be smoke if the FBI had a warrant more power to them.
I disagree with the above AC, NOW IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TIME to ensure the FBI adheres to the rules, anyone we catch we must make sure IT STICKS. I'd hate to read about a case being thrown out because of a due process violation.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?