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.

9 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. Big brother by blate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"?

    1. Re:Big brother by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My laptop is plugged into a Cisco Catalyst 2900 series XL switch. From there it hits the Cisco Catalyst 6500 box, and then the wire goes downstairs, presumably through more Cisco equipment, across the Internet full of Cisco equipment.

      Note that I didn't advocate the violent overthrow of the government, only revolution. Big difference. I've been advocating that publicly for several years.

      Incremental changes to our completely hosed system doesn't cut it. The Constitution was a fine document, too bad it wasn't even 20 years before it was spoilt by the greed of men.

      --
      MORTAR COMBAT!
  2. Time to break out your own encryption by mrjive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Sigh. by Pirogoeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Undetectable built-in backdoor by shrikel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Eavesdropping 'must be undetectable,' and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another.

    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.
  5. Should assume your channels are vulnerable by xtal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Re:you want privacy? by blate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:I don't see what the big deal is. by st0rmcold · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.
  8. Re: ain't so simple by elwinc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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!