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.
will they implement the evil bit?
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.
Is it just me, or is this another great reason to buy cheaper, better network equipment from someone else? If I were running Cisco, I would be a little more concerned with the market share being sucked up by newer companies than with adding the cost of undetectable snooping to the product line.
Now I certainly feel justified in moving my company off of Cisco's overpriced products.
Bummer...
If this is true, and Cisco does go forward with this, I will be sure not to buy anything Cisco. I will have to look for other devices to preform what is needed. Yeah, Cisco wont hurt by me not buying them, but if the word spreads, and people boycott Cisco for doing this, im sure they will change their mind unless Big Brother is giving them funds/tax breaks/whatever to get them to do this.
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.
I guess i can understand why Cisco is opting to build these types of technologies into their equipment, given the current U.S. political climate. But what about all the other nations of the planet that aren't reverting to McCarthy'ism? Will Cisco still be exporting non-backdoor-compliant hardware as well?
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
or the very stupid evildo-er.
/dev/random to all my comrades they will never EVER figure it out.
If I simply send everything encrypted AND send lots of fake packets... I.E. random sized files that consist of the contents of
It's called hiding in a sea of garbage. Now write a nice small program that is a P2P sharing app (or a plug-in for one) that sends around some of those random files to other users (small ones 1-100K in size then keep your files in that size range)
Screw with them as they screw with you.
so a freenet node will completely hose this "eavesdropping system"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another" -- If the police cannot determine if a wiretap is running on the router, then what is to stop a malicious party from running one there without administrative knowledge?
"Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
What is the point of encryption if you have to give up the keys. I say its up the the spooks to have the capabilities to crack my encryption rather than force me to hand over the keys. Even then, I'd only hand over the keys in encrypted form, still forcing them to use their supper computers. Serriously, encryption is a black and white area... some grey, but mostly either a situation where you use it, or don't...
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
McCullagh makes an excellent point that US government agencies have a history of illegal surveillance. If protecting the public justifies building in eavesdropping capability, then it equally justifies building in accountability. Terrorists and civilian criminals aren't the only menaces to the public. Surveillance activity should be logged and sent to secure storage which can be accessed through well-defined legal channels.
You should absolutely Blame Cisco!
sulli
RTFJ.
Pine, a Dutch company already created such software.
Since eavesdropping on quantum encrypted transmissions is always detectable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
If they do start to implement such eavesdropping facilities, I imagine that a lot of people might switch to routers powered by open source (such as Linux, BSD) so they can really know what's under the hood. Remember that a low end Pentium running Linux can easily route 10/100 Mbps.
That being said, Cisco knows that companies that used to buy from them will still probably buy from them. So this can't be a huge risk to their company. But the 'new features' would firmly embed government eavesdropping facilities in major ISPs, banks, large companies, schools, universities, etc.
I get what you are saying, but this is not a new concept. I used to work for a big cell-phone maker, in the cellular software division. I saw preliminary information about a wiretap project that would allow the carrier to intercept, log, and reroute calls if told to do so by some authorized government agency. I have no doubts this is possible, because we were working on real-time systems. To do it would take a second or two at most. I don't know what ever happened to that project, it kind of faded away and our department didn't actually work on it. But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
This isn't new, we are just able to find out about things like this now because of the internet. As much as we don't want "our" technology mucked with by the government, I think it is going to be tough to prevent.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
...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?
The real problem I see here is that we are creating a methods by which a government member can know absolutely anything about anyone at any particular point. Now what if we (meaning the US) mistakenly elect government officials with very bad intentions? It HAS happened before in democratic countries, and I will neglect specific examples in order to avoid Godwin's Law. I don't necessarily fear what our current government will do with these technologies. I DO fear the prospect of a group of rogues using an infrastructure that we implemented for evil. I really believe that it is necessary in a free society to maintain some methods of secret communication. All revolutions which resulted in a better society required channels of secret communication that were unheard by 'Big Brother' as some may say.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
In case you haven't picked it up from the article, the designation for this new protocol is DPUG..Double Plus UnGood.
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.
The only thing that surprises me is that they have been so slow to implement it. The government already has the equivalent of this for phone tapping:
Virtually all phone calls (cellular and land line) in America run through certain switches controlled by Verint and they are always used by law enforcement for wiretapping (and are constantly accused of abusing their authority). (Google for Comverse, the company's name before the recent change to Verint.)
Why do I h8 apple?
'and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another'
Because if they did then all they would do all day is send data to each other through the router about what doughnut, gun, and police force is best...
The funny thing is... I'm an army reserve and Auxiliary Police Officer which means I can make fun of myself!
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
So, the cops can packet sniff. Really, they could do that before, all this does is provide a better mechanism to do so. If we are talking about privacy, hardware is not the issue, the current laws are. If packet sniffing requires a courts approval, what does it matter if it is implemented in the hardware or not?
I guess, to me, this really isn't a huge deal, just an easier way for the cops to do their job.
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
I can't think of a single decent managed switch that doesn't come with a spanning port. This isn't any different in practice--it's just a system that allows for particular LE situations to be handled correctly. And for christs' sake, what's wrong with a lawful warrant? They even have those in fucking Canada and France, so why does "lawful intercept" immediately turn into "Evil American Facism"?
Did it ever occur to any of the bitchers and moaners here that when the FBI or the cops need to intercept network communications, they're working in the dark much of the time? They have a legal obligation to collect only what their warrant specifies, and nothing further. This is difficult, to say the least. Carnivore (and Magic Lantern, or whatever they call it now) is just a sniffer that is optimized for being VERY SELECTIVE about what it captures.
Why? Because if the FBI has a warrant for Guido Gambino's net traffic, but they accidently pick up some of Tony Gambino's traffic, too, stuff outside the warrant is tainted. Any good defense attorney could make the Feds look like monkeys on something like that. These guys are generally heavily incentivized to NOT violate your rights. This isn't absolute, but thanks to criminal defense lawyers, it's pretty fucking close.
The point of Cisco pushing this draft is to start a discussion about how to let LE get what it needs (and what YOU want it) to get when investigating crimes, but without accidentally violating the rights of anyone outside the scope of its efforts.
There are some people around here (not nearly everybody, but some) who really ought to grow up and realize that the Net isn't Stephen Levy's little MIT-hacker-paradise anymore. Real people, who sometimes commit very real crimes, use it, too. Do you think they all ought to get a free pass just because they're "cool" enough to use email?
No need to worry about this. I've had people on AOL for years asking me to verify my password and I always give it to them. I've even had to verify my credit card numbers and addresses with AOL Reps over Aol Instant Messenger. Boy, those guys are such nice and helpful people. Im glad their billing glitches didnt erase my account :)
Yeah, i did have a lot of porn and various expensise gifts on my credit card, but i dont think that has anything to do with it.
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!
Thus its not like itsa new form of intrusion or the ersoion of a sacred right. Moreover we have an extensive legal system that already know how to walk an acceptable line between preserving public order and unlawful searches and seizures. yes there are flagrant abuses of course, but the basic level of public expectaion and legal machinery is inplace to deal with this
Thus the real question is if the ascroft era people will try to use this as an end-run around the existing legal machinery. I paraphrase a former missouri senator who said (about carnavor-like intrusion) "I dont put a phone jack on the outside of my house so the feds can listen in when they please, so I dont want a jack on my internet connection for the same purpose". Ironically that senator was the John ascroft before he lost hisz relection bid to a dead man and became the worst attourney general ever including edwin meese. Now he chafes at these restrictions and does indeed want such a jack and the pre-emptive authority to use it without a court order, probable cause, or a defined list of evidence to be gathered.
Thus I welcome the cisco method since it formalizes what is now a covert and thus unmonitored process. thus this may bring the light of public scrutiniy and invite the invocation of past legal precedent.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Boy, it sure looks like a lot of you guys have a great plan in place. "I will spew much encrypted garbage data along with encrypted real data!" "I will encrypt my own shit and not give up the key! If I have to give up the key, the key will be encrypted!!" I wonder: how long would you sit in jail, without parole or phone call, until you decide to give the keys up to the local police? Because those guys don't care how encrypted your shit is, and thanks to the current administration they don't have to.
If you're wondering why Cisco - who has enough money to buy just about anyone except for Microsoft or Motherfucking Fujitsu Heavy Industries - is bothering to implement this particular technology, consider the above.
"The most cigarettes."
i am curious what the performance of a router is going to look like with two agencies peering into it.
on the face of it this is going to look like a provider outage i am thinking. since its completely 'transparent' even with multiple big brothers or any blakc hat people that might have jumped on the router as well i am thinking.
if nothing is going to show up in the interface statistics and nothing in the cpu is going to account for the activity. but when you look at your csu/dsu (or equivlent) you will see the activity.
maybe the best way to deal with this is to forget using the real traffic, but rather use the rfc that they propose for actual communication since its invisible to the other peers. sounds like a stealth vpn to me of sorts.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Physical limitations that provide what we today call "privacy" are already on the way out the door. In a hundred years, technology will be at the point where every private citizen will be able to see and hear just about anything anywhere.
Whether this is good or bad for society is another matter, but it's been suggested that we'll simply need to adapt. Arguably, using information obtained through "privacy-invading" means is just childish immaturity, when you look at the big picture. Maybe our society just needs to grow out of that?
Fighting change in this area of technology only delays the inevitable and keeps the abilities in the hands of the surreptitious and those who *would* use it solely for their own benefit.
Something to think about...
...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.
The good thing about this (if there is one) is that it is not a law. Yet. It says in the article that many providers are still insuring that they can recieve products without this feature so that they will not the legally required to enable it.
The bad thing is that some parts of the internet infrastructure, especially in other countries, are owned by goverments. This will lead to the governments having more oversight without making a official requests.
Imagine those communites in America that were so greatful that their municipal government stepped up and provided them with subsidized fiber access. Will they be so greatful when systems like these get employed so local law enforcement gets to observe them?
Makes me feel like when Verizon turned my records over to the RIAA.
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.
I'd love to create some crypto traffic between my home box and work machine (besides the normal SSH, of course). The more white noise packets floating around out there, the better. TCP/IP spook fodder, if you will.
Better yet, is there an encrypted, routed "internet" I can plug into at will when I'm online, just to obfuscate my traffic a bit? Or is that what Freenet is about?
Method of processing duck feet
They sold monitoring and censorship technology to the Chinese government, and weren't punished for it by the marketplace. So the chickens now come home to roost.
We have some capabilities in some of our equipment that will allow you to take all the traffic that goes across an interface and send it to another interface. Right now that is used in some cases as a lawful interception technology.
When we first started talking, some engineers said, "Let's turn this on and use that." I said, "Heavens no, if we can narrow the range of information, let's do it."
CISCO Port SPAN. This is what he is refering to. They can currently trap all the packets. This new technology will allow them to select a smaller subset of packets to capture...
This is still scary stuff, and will lead to other new encrypted VOIP stuff that is not built around Cisco hardware, but sending packets themselves, encrypted...
Silly Rabbit: tricks are for kids.
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!
So is this why Cisco wants to buy Linksys?
So "they" can then monitor home users directly?
Also, look at products like those offered by startups including CloudShield -www.cloudshield.com - these boxes when used with or within Cisco/Juniper/Avici/Procket/Caspian routers will make such 'intercepts' much more powerful. then all one needs is googling capabilities built in and voila.... sharks riding on elephants with frickiN laser beams on their heads....
Quote from Fred Baker, "There are two sides. One is that Cisco as a company needs to let its customers abide by the law. The other is the moral and ethical issues. There are two very separate questions."
First of all, this makes it sound like there was a law passed which specifies all routers must have this kind of capability. I sure have not heard about that.
It sounds like currently an ISP can be subpoenaed to find out what a particular person is sending. Currently, the ISP seems to provide complete logs and allows law enforcement to sort through it. This just sounds like bad practice of law. If we lived in John-Ashcroft's-wet-dream-land where every packet has a personal ID number on it which could not be forged or faked, sure you could ask for what a person sends. This is so far from the case that it is a joke. Even if I only use one computer and it has one IP address, what if someone else uses it? Even if the email has a name on it, what if it was forged? It would be laughably easy to plant evidence on, say, a business rival. Bottom line: computer are not very secure, in general. (Side note: sure, your computer may be very secure but visit, say, a law office. You may be surprised - even by very large law offices with nice wood panneling and mugs with the partner's names on them.)
If subpoenaed for John Q. Terrorist's internet activity, knowing what we know, we cannot hand anything over with a clean consience. If, on the other hand, all of IP address 64.22.xx.xx is subpoenaed, sure, we have to hand it over but we cannot say who did what with any great certainty.
Lastly, Mr. Baker seems to indicate providing a product is separate from morality. This is a very disjointed view of work - almost on the verge of: "what I do at work should be totally separate from morality." This is quite frightening. Perhaps this is too strong. He is clearly saying if the company follows the law, this is completely separate from morality. Again, this should be frightening: if you follow the law, morality is not at issue? The most obvious reaction is that if the law is wrong, in America, you have a responsibility to not follow it. Being part of a corporation does not absolve you of your duties as a citizen.
In my opinion, the workplace is where people are least moral (in my experience) and thus it is exactly where people need to be thinking of morality the most - certainly not separating it and arguing "we are just following the law".
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
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.
You're living in a dream world. Hey, I agree with you, but hell will freeze over before we "respect and even support one another's freedoms." Don't go taking my privacy away based on some fantasy that it will bring about a wonderful revolution in attitude, where everyone is happy and the world is like a Care Bear movie.
Life doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
The examples given thus far have been tame. "Some cop will harass you because he doesn't agree with your views." Wait until you start doing serious research on, say, abortion. You post anonymous messages on forums because you've knocked your girlfriend up and need advice on how to abort. Someone with access to the monitoring equipment decides he doesn't like that, so he has the both of you killed.
Don't think it could happen? There are people on both sides of every major debate who will kill you to protect their interests. I believe the murdered abortion doctors are a testament to that.
No, I'm sorry, but your fantasy world doesn't exist, and it never will. You may defend my freedoms, but that doesn't mean my neighbor will. I may trust you, but when I have no privacy, I have to trust everyone - and society has shown time and time again that an awful lot of people aren't trustworthy.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
We could build a box that would monitor packets in, with the packets out (transpearant bridge) and parse the diff. That way, we would know who is doing what and sending it where. (and target future Slashdot DDS)
The other thing is, the network (inet) is more or less public and decentralized, which is DIFFERENT from Telco service which is more or less private and centralized, which makes it (anti privacy measures) much more difficult to implement, as one could route around the wiretap.
No, the only way the Feds/NWO/xIAA/etc could effectively wiretap networks is through a transperant bridge in the middle (between two routers). And a good sys admin, should be able to spot the increase in delay of such a solution.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
my uncle died of an evil bit.
Like this?
Line 1: Sssh, I can hear something.
Line 2: Hey bob, we got something.
Line 1: It's them!
Line 2: They can hear us!! Quick, drop the hardline.
Line 1: They've gone, call downtown!
Downtown: Oops sorry, we forgot to update the IOS.
nb: laugh
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
Wow. Mod parent for "cognitive dissonance". What abilities does Cisco's draft standard give to the Feds or cops that they don't already have, guy?
The Patriot, Patriot 2, and any other acts of the US or foreign governments that represent serious invasions of our privacy have nothing whatsoever to do with lawful intercept standards. If the government is sniffing you illegally or legally without good oversight, you're still getting fucked, anyway.
Remember Carnivore? That's actually a much, MUCH more invasive tool for lawful (or otherwise) intercept. A coherent standard, built into the router, would make Carnivore unnecessary and (probably) constitutionally impermissable as an over-broad surveillance tool.
Right now, if the FBI gets a warrant to sniff your Net traffic, they walk into your ISP's office with a warrant and plug their sniffer into a router. They'll probably use a filtering expression to just look at stuff heading to/from your IP address (as reported by the ISP), but maybe they won't. Maybe they'll capture raw traffic and parse it out later to get your packets, throwing out the rest.
For the ISP, this isn't really very fun. They have to give up control over their router to the Feds, because there isn't any developed protocol for describing lawful collection of data on a router. What if Special Agent Johnson doesn't know the Cisco 7600 series as well as he thinks? Whoops, there's some downtime for the ISP, and maybe a bill for a new router if something really gets fucked up.
And what if the tap has to stay in place for a while? Some wiretap orders persist for months. That means Agent Johnson will be hanging around and making you nervous at work for quite a while. He likes his coffee black with sugar, just so you know.
The new standard would allow an ISP or other company to look at a warrant, turn around to the router, and put the tap in place themselves. The FBI will ONLY see what they specify in the warrant, and the ISP gets to continue on serving up porn to the rest of us. No muss, no fuss, no incidental privacy violations.
I would like an IP over IP system that uses valid, normal looking data to hide exactly what's happening regardess of the data being carried.
n d/
From CodeCon, Invisible IRC networks, IP steganography etc:
http://codecon.deor.org/program.html
Of relevance here is http://peek-a-booty.org/ a privacy enhancement system described as a distributed anti-censorship application.
Covert channels in the TCP/IP Protocol:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_5/rowla
This discusses a means to use IP to hide outgoing data for nefarious purposes, this could also be used to hide your personal outgoing data which is becoming a nefarious activity.
Many more hits on the web that I don't need to post here. I can and do use encrypted pipes, SSH, SSL, PGP etc. In the CodeCon URL, which is very interesting, there are numerous mentions of privacy enhancing software and methods.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
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?
Sigh!
I knew that the US educational system was bad, but not as bad as you just demonstrated! I wrote a few lines and you can't even read them.
Let me recap: I wrote "The impose death penalty on minors." I missed a 'y' in there, but the sentence is clear, no? I didn't say I disagree with the death penalty, did I? No, I said 'minors'. But that is probably asking too much of your literacy to fathom.
And when it comes to the traffic ticket, a friend of mine forgot to pay his, was pulled over by the Police because of a suspended license due to non-payment (btw, nobody took the time to inform him that the license was suspended!) and hauled off to jail. I'm really happy that the Police caught a dangerous criminal and got him off the streets. Yikes!
And as another poster mentioned, don't try to oppose the war, because then you'll be thrown in jail (see a pattern here?) and the police demands you to answer questions that violates your rights.
Freedom and democracy? Don't even get me started on that bull. The problem is that the average American has not been further away from home than their neighbouring county and has no clue as to what is going on in the world. Try to watch a news channel here to see what is happening around the world? Impossible, because you get "The world news in 60 seconds!" Gee... Not much happening in the rest of the world I guess since you can fit it in 60 seconds!
Americans = World illiterate!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
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"