Slashdot Mirror
Dartmouth Student Invents A Carnivore Leash
timdorr writes: "Looks like a student at Dartmouth wants to turn Carnivore into a much more resonable tool according to this Wired article. I'd personally feel a lot less invaded if I knew the system was in place and in this form. Hopefully the government takes notice becuase Carnivore still seems like quite a loophole for our government to exploit."
No offense to the ASPCA, but how about a quick and dirty neutering?
This is an excellent approach! I am really thrilled to see someone coming up with a solution that allows the government all legitimate use while providing the tools to prevent overstepping. And partially funded by the justice department too!
The big problem with this is that even if it's implemented, since under the Patriot Act judges need not sign off on subpoenas, the FBI et al would still be able to get all they keys they want and still access all the data.
For this device to be useful, unfortunately, the law must be changed to require judicial oversight... and the judges must be trustworthy!
I'd personally feel a lot less invaded if I knew the system was in place and in this form.
I'll personally continue to encrypt my emails - as many as possible of course.
Routine use of encryption (like for the one-liners) defeats to some extent traffic analysys.
The recent improvements in factoring (look here and here) don't affect 1536- or 2048-bit keys (or larger). For the time being, public-key encryption is the best means of protecting your e-mail privacy. Don't rely on some guys' kindness - with a little effort you can be sure your nosy admin/ parent/ spouse/ street cop won't "accidentally" read your stuff.
http://www.gnupg.org
if you use a good enough junk-filter, slashdot.org will display a single, *blank*, page
True, they would be able to get all the keys they want - but they would still be limited in the data each key can retrieve. It's highly unlikely that the system would allow the FBI to request key allowing them to access ALL emails, or enough restricted-data keys, without there being some oversight by a third body (the judge)
This is an important developement because it looks like striking the right balance between the individuals' right to privacy and the requirements of the government in their quest to protect us. Whether the system will be used to protect us or not is not something programming can change, sadly, that's a matter for the judges et al signing off on the subpoenas/search warrants/what not
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Why do people have so much of a problem with the authorities monitoring e-mail, yet don't get up in arms about straight phone tapping? The right of the police to tap your phone is no different from their right to search your home, search you or indeed put you in prison. The same goes for reading your e-mail.
/.)
Each of these powers is granted so that they can fight crime. I don't have a problem with the police having any of these powers, as long as they are restricted, i.e. you need a warrent to search someones house, or tap their phone, so you should need one to read their e-mail. I have a problem with echelon and 'fishing-trips', and the police abusing their power of search and arrest. But then thats why we have rules. Its up to us/our representatives/the judges to make sure that the police obay those rules. This is why so many cases get thrown out of court on 'technicalities', because someone broke the rules.
On the whole this is pretty well inforced in britain, for example ALL interviews with the police, MUST be taped, and there has to be a witness, (unlike in the US where recording is only reccommended. That said we do have the rather dubious RIP bill but that still requires a warrent.
So basically, if you are against (restricted, needs a warrent etc) tapping of your e-mails, you should be against the (warrented) search of properties and the (warrrented) tapping of phones.
The internet is no different from any other communications medium. If you really think that it is, or has ever been some utopian paradise of free speech somehow seperate from the real world and real world laws, where anything is allowed, then you need to get out and about a bit more.
The Internet is just another communications network, no different from any other. It is not special, just more advanced. Using the internet is no different from using a phone, or fax. You are not special, it is not special. Grow up and stop seeing the world from such a narrow viewpoint (I can't beleive I just said that on
Paul
Paul Leader
For this device to be useful, unfortunately, the law must be changed to require judicial oversight... and the judges must be trustworthy!
:) ]
[ I said this before, but I like to repeat myself
Current public-key encryption (gnupg, pgp) is strong enough to keep you safe from "casual" prying eyes - like your spouse, children, parents, syadmin, boss, street cops, even the fbi. Maybe they *can* crack it (i mean the feds), but they won't go to that without strong reasons and probably more thinking.
What really pisses me off if this "casual" attitude to authorities snooping my personal communication; I'm sure that if the cia, nsa, kgb, mafia, big corporations or who knows else - want to read my email, they will. But I'm also sure that by using gpg, none of the small big-brothers will get their kicks.
if you use a good enough junk-filter, slashdot.org will display a single, *blank*, page
The article mentions the use of an cryptographic coprocessor that will self destruct if it notices any breach of security, rendering the stored data useless. It also states that this "vault" could be used to store medical information etc..
I for one would like to know for sure that my medical information could be retrieved even after the destruction of the coprocessor.. would be nice when i'm caught in accident and i'm not able to sum up my medical history myself...
Off course it's possible to use a less secure version of this "vault" for this kind of applications
This is one nice solution though to harden the carnivore system against unwanted, illegal, snooping around for nice bits of information that could be used by a cop or fbi agent on the take...
If the ISP was allowed to review the code, compile it themselves, and install it one of their own boxes, the chance of abuse would be much smaller.
I think people need a history lesson on all the arguments surrounding the Clipper chip. Remember, the problem isn't always government (although that's definitely part of it), but the inability of government to effectively protect the information from third parties that will abuse it. Key escrow is something that can and will be compromised. And because it is a technology that can and will infiltrated everything, it will allow complete access to your privacy by anyone who wants it. Again, it's the Clipper chip all over again!
Need I revisit the the classic boofernery of the Social Security Number? Outlawed by the government for use outside of its specific creation, it is now used by everyone. And it is extremely easy to obtain, let alone steal! Now the government wants to introduce a national ID, something that is "more controlled" than the SSN. But it too will be easy to obtain and steal in no time as well. Only now, with a national ID, more people will put more of that so-called "faith" it in, so good Americans will have a tougher time proving someone has stolen their identity when it does happen (and it will). And if Microsoft gets Passport behind an "eID," God help us!
Combine this with the CBDTPA/SSSCA, and there's plenty to worry about. The CBDTPA/SSSCA is exactly a pro-Clipper chip mentality! Only it isn't the FBI asking for it, but "Big Media." Heck, I'm surprised no one in "Big Media" is selling the CBDTPA/SSSCA to the government as an "unified solution" for "guaranting copyrights, privacy and law-enforcement" all in one shabang!
Now this researcher has got "all the answers." His solution? Implement an encrypted recording and storage system with key escrow for access. How original! How many times are we going to go in the same damn circle on this???
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
"The source code for the vault, which runs under the Linux operating system, is available on Dartmouth's website."
So this system will itself be illegal when Senator Hollings and his ilk finally get non-security-compliant systems banned.
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
Carnivor cannot catch real terrorists. There is no way that is possible - the various encryption techniques can encrypt unbreakably and disguise the fact that any encryption is going on. Programs to do this are free (both meanings). Any real terrorist or anyone with any real degree of malice or danger would encrpt their communciations in such a way that breaking them takes more time than the FBI can afford to spend... say, 10,000,000 years.
While I'd agree most would be intelligent enough to do so, one should also never underestimate the stupidity of criminals, or people in general. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if many did send things in the open.
- The judiciary being incorruptible;
- All ISPs being incorruptible;
- The laws being such that the judiciary doesn't OK any and every excuse to look at data;
- The idea that some kid supplying a nice geek-friendly method automatically makes it OK for a government to enforce mandatory logging.
Once again, an attempt to apply a technological solution to a social problem. This is to privacy as CSS encryption is to piracy.The FBI needs a court order or the permission of one of the two parties involved to get a wiretap. It's not trivial.
Carnivore, on the other hand, listens without permission from the judicial system, without any oversight. There is no balance to this power.
Sure, Carnivore is equivalent to a phone tap for email---a phone tap that the feds can apply to anyone, for any reason, on the merest whim.
I think the tin-foil hats are justified here.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You haven't been paying attention to this subject. That's okay, it's not your country.
One problem is that it's an information vacuum, it sucks up *everything* from the ISP, not just the packets sent or received by the suspect. They supposed to toss the packets belonging to everyone but the suspect but we only have their word on that. It's like they tapped every phone at a CO and are supposed to throw out all the tapes except the ones for the one house.
Another is that the implementation of Carnivore does *not* have the same oversight wiretaps or property searches do.
Have you ever seen Goodfellas or The Sopranos? When they do a wiretap, they're only allowed to record or listen if they hear in the first two minutes the target of the wiretap (not his wife, not his cousin) or if it's is material to the case. If its not, they have to turn it off for a period of time (something like 5 minutes) after which they can turn it back on to check again. With Carnivore they keep it all and don't even have a way of knowing who in the household was using the computer. Carnivore is like a secret search warrant of every home or business the suspect or anyone in his family visited.
Someone else mentioned a suspect has no way of knowing if they're being "bugged" by Carnivore but I don't think we have a fundemental right to know if a warrant has been issued with our name on it.
Of course wiretaps have gotten broader. I believe the FBI finally got their "roaming wiretap" law allowing them to listen to any phone the suspect *may* use. I'm sure there are rules of admissability if they record someone else by "mistake" but it's to late, the damage to innocent people's privacy has been done, they can't un-listen to their conversation.
The Internet is different from other communications networks, not in terms of our rights but in technical terms. This has important ramifications for how laws are written and implemented. You should be squirming at the sight of my my similes comparing Carnivore to wiretaps and house searches, most metaphors relating the Internet to the physical world break down with a little scrutiny, but I'm just trying to relate my perspective.
Carnivore is part of a larger trend we've been seeing in this country where what we believe is our right to privacy is being trampled by our government, not to mention corporations and other individuals. We see the lack of oversight for something like Carnivore and we feel the "chilling effect" it has on our speech and acts. It comes down to Quis cusotdiet ipsos custodes, "Who Watches the Watchers?" The recording of interviews by the police in the UK is smart for evdentiary reasons but it's really there to prevent abuses by the police. How do we get that for the use of Carnivore?
The Internet has become a personal communications medium, with people blissfully chatting away on email, instant messagers, message boards, et cetera. The question is simple: If it was your phone, would you let a machine be installed to listen to all of your conversations without judicial oversight?
No? Well, how about we read all of your mail as a matter of routine.
No again? Why not have someone follow me around and tape all of my meatspace conversations?
Still no? So why are you giving in so easily when it's just the Internet?
Anybody who thinks that this capability won't be abused just has their head in the sand. It's only a matter of time.
LV
Woot w00t w007.
Yes, if Carnivore is doing a simple word scan on email messages, but somehow I doubt that. I would imagine that it knows the difference in context from a message like "Say a prayer for those who died by the hands of terrorists" and a message that contains the launch directives for the next message.
Except that a terrorist "go code" probably wouldn't contain any information about what they were doing at all. Since they already know what the mission is.
If I was going to do something similar to a terrorist activity, I wouldn't just be pushing raw ASCII email messages with that kind of information in them. I would encrypt the message in a image and say, "Look at some pictures from my trip to NYC." Carnivore is looking for those kinds of patterns.
No you want to avoid encrypting anything and denfinitly not hiding inside a graphics file. Since this is likely to create obvious patterns. Far better to use a code a good code will appear to be a competly innocent message.
I fail to understand why this system is all that much better? This box records everything! Yes, each "conversation" is stored encrypted, and supposedly the FBI needs a court order to get the keys. Carnivore on the other hand looks at everything, but only records those things relevant to the court order, as determined by the settings entered into Carnivore. Yes, there is a chance it could be set up wrong, and that was the subject of the many recommendations IITRI made to improve the product. However the stuff that is not recorded by Carnivore can never be recovered, by definition of not being recorded in the first place. There is no opportunity to go back to court to ask for more keys. It has either been recorded or not.
While I am not a big fan of Carnivore, I fail to see how this system protects us any better.
The USA PATRIOT Act denies us the opportunity for judicial review. In cases of abuse, we may never hear about it. Neither will the courts. Law enforcement have overreaching authority now. They can get a wiretap or e-mail tap on someone merely by saying it is 'in connection' with an ongoing investigation, without providing evidence. There is also no performance review. They are under no obligation to tell the courts how fruitful the search was or what, if anything they found. These 'checks and balances' have been in place for over 25 years and had really changed a lot.
Maybe I'm being paranoid. But, maybe I'd just like there to be no opportunity for abuse. I have to assume that the fact there are 100's of thousands of requests by the justice department for new information on online users that in some way, they are too broadly searching the net.
This is all based on the premise that the terrorists aren't using any type of concealment such as PGP(which we know they are). The invasion of privacy is unwarranted. There was no real review process for the PATRIOT act. It has some really good provisions. And a bunch that are blatantly 'over the line'. I want a safe homeland just as much as the next guy. I'm just hoping that fear similar to that felt during the cold war doesn't well up again. Our own fear is our worst enemy.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Let's look at it this way. If I have to go to a judge to request a tap, spelling out why I need it, then it's a serious thing. If I don't have to, then it's a casual thing - so the possibilities of misuse become that much greater.
...
...
Let's say someone is misusing it. If they have to knowingly decieve a judge in order to get their tap, then if they are caught it's obvious to all. If they don't have to get prior approval, it can be blown off with "oh that's the wrong address, sorry" without any easy way of proving that it is not the case. And as it's a casual thing, generate a load of taps - the "oh that shouldn't have been there" excuse becomes all the more plausable
Everyone accepts that misuse is always likely to occur (human nature). That's why you should have a set of checks and balances to disuade people from casual misuse.
But it's all smoke. The constitution (4th amnd.) says that your right of "privacy" should only be disturbed if authorised by a judge. If the government/authorities want to change that, then they need a new amendment (nothing less will do). Anything less is "not the american way". What's the point in having a constitution (contyract between people and government) if it's not followed by the government?
I've always understood that you are innocent until proven "a criminal". It's not that criminal's can't find out if they are under surveilance, it's *anyone*, criminal or otherwise can't find out. Who decides if it's a just cause -oit used to be a judge
The difference between this and the Clipper chip was that the clipper chip was going to be backed by a law that required ALL encryption in the US (personal, corperate, government, whatever...) be done under key escrow. It made it illegal to use any encryption that did not support key escrow and you had to get your keys from a federal agency (so they could insure that they had a key in escrow). The Clipper proposal took encryption out of the hands of the common man (no PGP or anything else, only government sanctioned encryption)
The Dartmouth proposal is key escrow, but not as wide ranged as the Clipper proposal. This proposal does not state that you can't use PGP( or ROT-13 or some other encryption technology) for personal reasons, or that you can't create a private encrypted (VPN) digital voice channel between you and your friend (or partner in crime).
The proposal is that if ISPs are forced to provide a standard mechanism for government agencies to snoop transmissions (ala CALEA for telco) then make the mechanism encrypt the data in a way that forces a process to be followed (even if a portion of that process is illegal, such as stealing escrowed keys)
Currently the data is available with no auditing at all. Anyone who has the capability (agencies) can force there way into an ISP and take the info, even threaten the ISP to remain silent that the event even occured. With technology of this nature, the event could be logged and audited later (even reporting which key was used so it could be invalidated)
This proposal needs lots of peer review; however it's not the Clipper Chip revisited.
=Shreak