Slashdot Mirror
More on Cisco Building Surveillance into Routers
An anonymous reader writes "The company recently published a proposal that describes how it plans to embed 'lawful interception' capability into its products. Among the highlights: Eavesdropping 'must be undetectable,' and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another. If an Internet provider uses encryption to preserve its customers' privacy and has access to the encryption keys, it must turn over the intercepted communications to police in a descrambled form." See our earlier story and the RFC for background.
Looks like just another opportunity to have our rights violated. I'm sure the Department of Homeland Insecurity is thrilled about this. Is this what Cisco means by "Empowering the Internet Generation"?
If you encrypt everything yourself, there's not much they can do about it, now is there?
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
As it says though, don't blame Cisco. If they didn't do it, sure as shootin' someone else would. Blame Ashcroft. Hopefully Cisco will find a way to build auditing tools into this to help promote responsible use.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
So what happens when a black hat gets in?
Answer: a completely open router that acts like none of his packets have the "evil bit" set.
Really, this is starting to worry me. If it's all undetectable, and is built in, how is this different from the telescreens in 1984? Big Brother is reading your packets!
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
This doesn't seem to be that big a deal to me. If you're passing large amounts of data around that would attract the attention of people who could get a lawful intercept warrant, then I would assume you are smart enough to use SSH, IPSec, or some other similar secure communications technology that renders the capability of this system useless. I smell an attempt to get a law mandating that ISPs upgrade to this equipment, meaning they'll have to replace all their existing non-conforming equipment by some date. I imagine the post-dot-com networking market is taking a hurting now.
"They" can already get IP logs and such that reveal a lot even without access to the information contained in the packets. Traffic analysis is a very powerful tool. The only people who would really stand a lot to lose from this would be the music and/or warez traders. Warez isn't that big a deal, and music copying isn't a big criminal deal here in Canada.
*shrug* Another cash grab. Hope someone 0wns the system good and makes Cisco look stupid. Oh, wait, DMCA. Nevermind.
..don't panic
Just wait until some petite functionaire in the Federal Government thinks that, for some reason, you're a terrorist (I mean the generic "you", not you in particular). Do you really want to make it any easier for them to tear your life apart?
Remember that law enforcement agencies are significantly motivated by *politics* -- which may or may not be what's in the best interests of national security, personal liberty, or justice. Today it's Arab terrorists they're targeting. But, perhaps if the recording industry pumps some more money into congress, they'll start locking up college kids for duping Metallica songs.
Locking up real, bone-fide terrorists is fine by me -- indeed, I encourage and support it. But giving some beaurocrat with a hair up his ass more power to invade my privacy is not the way to do it.
...because the loss of privacy leads to victimisation.
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But Inspector Plod is watching you anyway, and hey, he sees you downloading an interesting piece of porn.
Oh! It turns out you like watching [insert odd sex act here]. He guesses that might mean you are a member of [potentially embarrassing minority group]. He then uses this evidence to make your life hell.
Political groups can use these increased surveillance powers to spy on their opponents. Everyone ends up feeling "watched" and suddenly no-one trusts anyone anymore.
Protect your privacy while you still can.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
If you don't like the ramifications of using a Cisco product, then don't buy one. ( i know i wont purchase another )
Then, tell them why you wont buy their product and choose a competitor that hasn't vowed to violate their users privacy rights.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yay, another ignorant, there are certainly an abundance of people on slashdot who have the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
So then Inspector Plod duly notes this. Later, when you speak out on a public issue unpopular with Inspector Plod's superiors, your affection for [insert odd sex act] is mysteriously leaked to the media.
You might want to ask Scott Ritter about a misdemeanor "sealed" arrest record that strangely became public knowledge after he publicly criticized recent Iraq policies.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
not to debate the point (privacy is hugely important) but if you are doing things which you are ashamed of, maybe you should ask yourself a few questions.
In Scott Ritter's case, he was accused propositioned sex from (who he thought) an underage girl over the internet. In fact it was an undercover police officer.
Either the charges are true, or they aren't. If they are true, Ritter should go to prison. If they aren't, then his name is cleared. Otherwise, from your example, Inspector Plod could just make up any old charge he wanted to and "leak it to the media" anyway.
MORTAR COMBAT!
...equate to privacy being required? It seems to me that you're assuming it's a bad thing for an anti-porn person to discover someone watching porn. Maybe this would force them to talk, and to get a better understanding of each other. Maybe it would help the anti-porn people understand that sexual desires are normal and healthy, and maybe it would help the pro-porn people understand that there is a lot of exploitation in the porn industry. Maybe it would even lead to better regulation of porn to remove such problems. It seems to me that the major reason North America (maybe the world, I haven't travelled much) is so fucked up on a sexual level is that we don't talk about it enough, and as a result we don't have the faintest idea what normal is.
Yay, another ignorant, there are certainly an abundance of people on slashdot who have the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.
Translation: "You're stupid, just like all the other people that don't agree with me.".
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
Translation: "An authority exists which has the potential to abuse it's power, therefore this authority must be kept weak by other methods, particularly ignorance."
This argument can be applied to remove any law enforcement. Yes, officers with bad attitudes can harass people for any number of reasons, race, sexual preference, or maybe they just got cutoff by a different white Honda on the way to the station this morning. Each of the previous three examples is wrong (as any crime), will always happen (as any crime) and should be punished (as any crime). Trust in law enforcement is a cornerstone of our society and should exist without all of us covering our tracks in daily life like criminals.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Translation: "I couldn't come up with any better arguments so I'm going to resort to name calling again."
Look, I understand that power corrupts. I strongly support individual rights and personal freedoms. But I would prefer to have these freedoms not through the furtive actions of looking over my shoulder to make sure no one is watching, but by the pervasive understanding throughout our society that we respect and even support one another's freedoms. To paraphrase an earlier patriot, I may not agree with what you (legally) do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it!
Note: I will also defend your right to resort to name calling, though I similarly reserve the right to hold it up to public ridicule. Done and done.
This government of ours is acquiring ridiculous amounts of power and the freedom to do anything they want with it. This is simply unacceptable.
Real people, who sometimes commit very real crimes, use it, too
Fine. If that is the case, the cops can go get a fucking warrant and actually perform some effort finding evidence. Forcing people to help the feds hoover up potentially incriminating data about _everyone_ is insane. Absolutely nobody would think it a good idea to put master-key capability into locks or bank vaults that only our Beloved Leaders could use. This sort of all-pervasive surveillance combined with the sheer stupidity of current tech laws is a very, very bad combination. The laws cannot be accurately or totally enforced, so they'll be used only for political or corporate pissing matches like the DMCA has been.
Dyolf Knip
Actually, according to the article, Ritter is alleged to have "had a sexual discussion." This is not at all the same as propositioning.
Was he tried? Was he found guilty? The article doesn't say. What it does say is "The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal."
In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So accordng to the information provided, Ritter is currently innocent of the charges, and likely to remain that way.
There is no reason to release the arrest record, and in fact County officials refused to release the arrest record. In such cases its unethical and likely illegal to release the arrest record.
This leak sounds to me more like the tactics of a police state than a democracy that values freedom. Which is the greater crime; Ritter's alleged misdemeanor, or the leak? Do you think this leak will even be investigated? I'm not holding my breath.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Free speech is the right to speak freely. It is not the right to have anyone pay attention to you.
While this is technically true, there do seem to be a lot of public pressure to fall in line and not express any dissent. Consider for example the war against Iraq. Healthy and possibly crucial public debate is stifled because everyone should be "showing support for the troops".
Let us not also forget the example set by GWB who has said on several occasions that if you do not side with the US in the war on terror, then you are against the US, and apparently a supporter of the terrorists. This is hardly the sort of environment where debate and free speech will flourish.
You may disagree about the death penalty, but its existence in the U.S. doesn't make the U.S. a police state, anymore than its existence in European nations made them police states until they outlawed it. But that fact certainly seems to have given some Europeans a severe of case of unwarranted moral supremacy.
I agree with your first point, but I disagree with your opinion on the second. I believe that the US has executed minors who are generally not held to the same standards as adults most other places on the planet. Furthermore, while he was still a Governor, GWB refused to consider a plea for clemency in the case of a mentally retarded man who was due for execution. I believe those are the sorts of things that cause more civilized nations to claim the moral high ground when it comes to capital punishment. I believe that Gandalf said something to this effect: "Many who live deserve death just as many who die deserve life. Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement."
Since you're apparently a guest in my country, next time you wish to air your lies in public, at least make a bit of an effort to make yourself credible.
(sigh) No attempt to suppress rational debate there. I think the reference to "lies" was just a bit unwarranted, don't you think?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
The Constitution guarantees your right to speak freely. It doesn't guarantee you immunity from peer pressure.
What you consider "public pressure to fall in line" is really just the fact that most people in the U.S. do "support the troops" when they're sent to fight. If you perceive that as pressure, or feel uncomfortable, that's a problem for you, but it isn't "public pressure" to conform.
GWB's "with us or against us" remarks seem fairly tame, especially considering they are targeted at foreign leaders, not domestic voters. If you want to talk about how you might disgree with that, no one is stopping you.
On capital punishment, people and countries can make up their own minds, but opting one way or the other doesn't make anyone morally superior to anyone else. Besides, claims of moral superiority -- as if there's some impartial party keeping score -- are just so much arrogant bigotry.
Gandalf "said"? Gandalf isn't real.
And, yeah. I consider the original poster's assertions to be untrue, i.e. lies. I'm not interested in "rational debate" with anyone who fails to show evidence of rationality, willingness to debate, or complete disregard for truth.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Yeah, I saw the word "minor" So what? it doesn't change my opinion. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, but I don't think the death penalty has anything at all to do with democracy.
Sounds like you're trying to say your friend got pulled over for failing to pay a traffic ticket, and got caught driving with a suspended license. Well, bucko, driving without a license is a crime in the U.S. Sorry he forgot to renew his, but the duration of the license is clearly printed on it. And, no, failure to send someone a polite notice that license is expiring doesn't mean the U.S. is a police state. it simply means your friend is a bit irresponsible.
As for opposing the war, I know lots of people who oppose it, have been pretty vocal about it, and not one of them have been arrested. Now, people do get arrested for blocking traffic, defacing public property or commiting other crimes. Although they assert that they're doing that to protest the war, war protesters have been arrested for their crimes, not their opinions or their speech.
For the record, I've spent close to ten years living outside the U.S., in Europe, Africa, and the Arab Middle East. Apart from the Middle East -- where the media is almost all state controlled and saturated with government lies and propaganda -- I've found news eveywhere to concentrate on local issues. Why? Because that's their audience! And I've also found that most people are fundamentally ignorant of what the U.S. is really all about.
Again, try to come up with some facts to support your falsehoods.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"