Slashdot Mirror


Passive E-Mail Monitoring Leads To Arrest

www.2advanced.net writes "The world's first arrest resulting from passive monitoring of electronic communications is being reported by Globe Technology. In the article, sources reveal that 'an e-mail message intercepted by NSA spies precipitated a massive investigation by intelligence officials in several countries that culminated in the arrest of nine men in Britain and one in suburban Orleans, Ont. -- 24-year-old software developer Mohammed Momin Khawaja, who has since been charged with facilitating a terrorist act and being part of a terrorist group.'"

50 of 921 comments (clear)

  1. Orleans by dolo666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those of you who have no idea where Orleans is in Ontario, its very close to Ottawa (minutes away), and about 2 hours from Montreal and 3.5 hrs from Toronto, making it an ideal spot to plan terrorist action in Canada. Ottawa is a couple hours from the US/Canadian border, and for those of you who have never driven the distance, it's a very somber drive, with extremely easy access into the United States. I knew a rum-runner once who would move liquor out of the states at an alarming rate through the St. Lawrence River border; a hardly monitored area concerned more with tourism than security, then. Today, it's a different story, I'm told.

    1. Re:Orleans by irix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those of you who have no idea where Orleans is in Ontario, its very close to Ottawa

      Orleans is part of Ottawa actually - one of the east end suburbs.

      Also, the guy alledgedly was planning something in the UK, not the US, so the proximity to the US border isn't really an issue. Besides, something like 90% or our population is within a few hours of the US border.

      --

      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  2. Doh... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    All your base are belong to NSA

    Though it really surprises me that the NSA would actually take responsibility for passing along tips.

    Generally they just pass stuff to the other three letter organizations and they take it from there.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Doh... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Though it really surprises me that the NSA would actually take responsibility for passing along tips.

      Generally they just pass stuff to the other three letter organizations and they take it from there.

      I suspect that with all the attention being paid to the traditional lack of cooperation between the various TLA orgs, they're probably falling all over themselves now to show how cooperative they can be. NSA has always been a little better than the others, as this is its primary function-- it doesn't use (ahem) "field operatives" to the same degree that the FBI and CIA does. The real head-butting goes on between the FBI and CIA. The culture of "cops" vs. that of "spooks" creates a lot of friction. They've never worked well together.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  3. Shouldn't this be YRO? by Xshare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems like YRO, I mean, they were monitoring his email, they probably are monitoring ours!

    1. Re:Shouldn't this be YRO? by andy1307 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Come to think of it, spam makes the job of the NSA more difficult. Must be hard finding an e-mail about a terrorist plot among all the mail for a larger. Shouldn't the government do something about spam: It's a national security issue. OTOH, if the NSA has a good spam filter they use before reading my mail, i'd be happy if they could share the technology with the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Shouldn't this be YRO? by fbform · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Shouldn't the government do something about spam: It's a national security issue. OTOH, if the NSA has a good spam filter they use before reading my mail, i'd be happy if they could share the technology with the rest of the world.

      Consider this steganographic method:

      1. Take a brief secret message you want to send (less than about 12 characters).
      2. Take a standard spam email.
      3. Set i to 0.
      4. Search for the next occurrence of (the ith character of the secret message) in the spam email.
      5. Replace that letter in the spam email with something else, such that the new word which is formed is NOT in the dictionary.
      6. Increment i and repeat for the whole secret message.
      7. Send the new spam email (with the grotesque misspellings) to intended recipient.

      To decrypt:
      1. Search the spam email for the first misspelled word and suggest replacements from the dictionary (knowing that exactly one letter was misspelled). Compare with the misspelled word and get all possible candidate letters for that position.
      2. Repeat for all such misspelled words.
      3. You will now have a (hopefully small) number of possible letters for each position. Do an exhaustive permutation of them all (hopefully it will not be larger than about 10^7) and search for messages with sequences of letters which DO exist in the dictionary.
      4. You will now have a small number of candidate decrypted messages. Decide for yourself (context-based) what the intended message was.

      I personally know someone who implemented this exact scheme and tried it with a few individual words (he wanted to send one word of secret message per spam email to keep the combinatorial explosion within bounds). Unfortunately most his fake spam emails were deleted by his spam filters. But it's an intriguing idea nonetheless.

      My point is: how would you keep track of all that spam and analyze them for such stunts? God knows we have enough spam with intentional misspellings to defeat Bayesian filtering already. Just add strong crypto to the plaintext message before embedding it in the fake spam and we now have much harder problems. Is there even a theoretical way to detect (leave alone decrypt) such messages?

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  4. Yeah right... by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah right, like any terrorists would use unencrypted email.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Yeah right... by arc.light · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These guys aren't accused of being geniuses, just violent thugs.

    2. Re:Yeah right... by andy1307 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Encrypted to you perhaps, but really encrypted to the NSA? I don't think so..

      I don't know where i read this. A terrorist group was using hotmail to plot terrorist attacks. One terrorist in Pakistan would compose a message and save it in the drafts folder without sending it. The other terrorist across the world would log into the same account and read the message from the drafts folder.

    3. Re:Yeah right... by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah right, like any terrorists would use unencrypted email

      Hey, these are the same dipshits that confused AM/PM on their bomb in Spain, and blew themselves up in Gaza because they didn't account for daylight savings time.

      I am sure that some of them try to use encryption, but:
      1. I would guess a mojroity of the traffic is in the clear, "security through nonchalance and obfuscation"

      2. What makes you think that the encryption systems available to the general public aren't easily cracked by the boys in Virginia and Maryland?

    4. Re:Yeah right... by wishus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2. What makes you think that the encryption systems available to the general public aren't easily cracked by the boys in Virginia and Maryland?

      Mathematics.

    5. Re:Yeah right... by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point, using encrypted mail makes you stand out as somebody with something to hide. I don't believe that the NSA can easily break commercially-encrypted email, but I believe that if you give them cause to concentrate enough effort on your mail, they'll find a way. Especially since they can probably use various guessed-plaintext attacks. End every email with "Allah be praised" and you're pretty much toast.

      Even if they can't break the encryption, the traffic analysis allows them to figure out who is talking to whom, and that allows them to direct other forms of intelligence gathering.

      I've heard of small efforts to confuse and annoy the NSA by the regular use of encrypted email by people with nothing to hide, but such things are difficult to use at the moment, what with the key exchanges, the requirements to use particular mailers, and the fact that many people don't particularly want to participate in that little game, especially since it does leave you open to scrutiny.

      Combine that with a previous poster's observation that terrorists are more thugs than criminal masterminds, and yeah, I suspect that most of these efforts (at least at the low levels) do in fact use plaintext email.

      Not that that makes the NSA's life easy. There's an awful lot of email out there, and just looking for words like "bomb" in an email is going to be worthless.

      This case, I suspect, probably started with one email address that they suspected to be used by a terrorist through some other form of intelligence. That allows them to narrow down the search space.

      In other words, I doubt they have any techniques that allow them to take the entire firehose of email and sip out a manageable amount based just on the text. Which means that they're almost certainly not really reading your email, and you can include "I'm going to blow up the President" all you like without incurring the slightest notice, unless they've got some other bead on you already.

      Which doesn't mean that they couldn't read your email, if they so chose. They're not allowed to, if you're in the United States, but the capability certainly exists. Which is the remarkable part of this story: them admitting the capability. I really don't know why.

    6. Re:Yeah right... by rjelks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Okay, tinfoil hat time: I'm not saying I believe this, but why couldn't the NSA develop a great encryption scheme like PGP, release it to the public under the guise of an individual, then scream bloody murder? Everyone grabs it up because they think it can't be cracked, and the NSA sits back decrypting what they want? Misinformation seems kind of easy. No offense to Phil.

      -

    7. Re:Yeah right... by 3waygeek · · Score: 5, Funny
    8. Re:Yeah right... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not all terrorists are dumb, but the suicide variety are by definition fucking stupid.

      Remember Richard Reid, he of the explosive footwear? Caught when a passenger noticed him trying to set light to his shoes? Anyone with intelligence greater than or equal to that of a bag of hammers would have gone to the toilet and THEN tried to detonate their payload...

      The people who plan the operations might be smart, as may the people who instruct the bombers. But sooner or later you've got to communicate with the moron you're exploiting and persuading to blow himself up. At that point you're vulnerable, because he's stupid and easily led and all in all a liability.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  5. Today it's a different Story by rwiedower · · Score: 5, Funny

    Today, we must FEAR those EVIL Canadians and their rum-running abilities. In fact, we have to use our "army of cryptographers, chaos theorists, mathematicians and computer scientists" to defeat just one of those crazy canuck masterminds.

  6. Hurray for the good guys! by ichthus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EOF

    --
    sig: sauer
  7. Somebody forgot to use encryption! by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would the NSA investigate if PGP or similar encryption was used?

    Whatever the NSA is doing to monitor all the traffic, I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are drooling at the prospect of using this technology to catch so-called copyright violators. Civilian applications for a military technology, natch!

    1. Re:Somebody forgot to use encryption! by javatips · · Score: 5, Informative

      With the state of current encryption systems, it is very unlikely... The best approach to break encryption is by breaking the weakest link in the protocol, not the encryption algorithm.

      Once they suspect illegal activities and start an investigation, there is a lot of way to access the plain text without having to break the encryption algorithm. One easy way, is to break into the target computer and install a key logger. This requires a lot less efforts.

      Note that to suspect illegal activities, they can just do some traffic analysis. If they find some pattern (an e-mail is sent from A in CA to B in the UK, then shortly after another e-mail is sent from B in the UK to C in Pakistan, then you have the same path in reverse and the pattern repeat a lot) that trigger their alert, they will monitor A, B and C a little more closely and dig a little deeper to see if it looks suspucious enough for an investigation. Then they start to do active spying and they build their case.

      The passive monitoring in that case does not requires an breaking of encryption... it does not even requires to know the plaintext (if the traffic is encrypted).

    2. Re:Somebody forgot to use encryption! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
      > Erm... am I missing something? The only instance I am aware of where the NSA gave some advice to "strengthen" a cryptographic algorithm did actually strengthen it, when an attack was found for the algorithm a decade or so later.
      >
      > Anyone remember what algorithm it was? I think it might have been RSA.

      It was DES. NSA suggested that IBM make some modifications to the S-boxes that made DES more resistant to differential cryptanalysis.

      At the time, nobody (but NSA) knew about differential cryptanalysis. NSA basically told IBM to make the changes, and that it couldn't tell IBM why the changes were required.

      At the time (1980s), "informed speculation" in the crypto community was that NSA had weakened DES. When differential cryptanalysis was "discovered" publicly, a lot of smart people with a lot of math degrees under their belts... wound up looking like they had a fair bit of tinfoil on their heads :)

  8. Your ignorance is worse by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is so easy to monitor InterNet plain text communications, that I ALWAYS presume its been done since the start of the Net.

  9. Terrorism & spam by Dr_Ish · · Score: 5, Funny

    Although this news is probably bad for YRO issues, there may be an upside. If the NSA is packet-sniffing e-mail traffic, then maybe they will be motivated to find a way of reducing the amount of Nigerean printer cartridge enlargement spam messages. If we are really lucky, they may even share the solution with us all. Of course, it is also possible that the guys at the NSA may all suddenly become hung like donkeys, NOT!

  10. US Law? by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Foreign traffic that comes through the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws, and the NSA has a perfect right to monitor all Internet traffic," said Mr. Farber
    Yeah...no. Am I the only person here who finds this incredibly objectionable? Internet traffic is/should not be subject to any law except for the laws governing the sending/receiving points for it. Under their reasoning, they can apply their own laws to almost the entire Internet, since so much of the Internet is routed through the US's pipes.

    Apply American laws to events occuring in America. The United States is big, but it's not everything in the world. How DARE they presume to police the world and its communications.
    --
    ------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
    1. Re:US Law? by espo812 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      US law applies to Americans and those who commit offenses within America. Unless the USA *is* the world, I object to it thinking it may police the world.
      Every country has a right to defend itself. Part of an effective national defense is to monitor potential attackers and discover their identities and plans before they are carried out. Thus, we actively spy on the rest of the world to keep our country safe. Every country does the same and that's life.

      That said, police are mainly historians. They go to crime scenes, piece together evidence, and figure out what happened after the fact. That's all well and good, but I would much rather be proactive with threats to the nation and our people and stop attacks before they happen than be "investigators" sifting through dead bodies.
      --

      espo
  11. Oh, good by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I've probably got a ton of fans at the NSA due to discussion of privacy issues, security, and how to design systems that disallow monitoring that I've send through AIM/ICQ/mailing lists and other non-secured messaging systems.

    Seriously, I'd say that it's a pretty reasonable bet that AIM/ICQ/MSN/Yahoo are routinely monitored. They're easy to data-mine (heck, the commercial data from that *alone* is phenomenal -- if people hear on a show that "Debora Mullins and Sandra Walker will be possibly starring in 'Shredded Metal 2', and there's a mass of messages saying "Debora Mullins sucks", that'd be awfully useful to the production company.

    As for the NSA/CIA/FBI, messaging services are frequently used, easy to log and data-mine (no speech recognition necessary) systems that provide no end-to-end encryption that pass through a single point -- in the United States.

    Jabber is the only reasonably well-designed IM system I've seen, and nobody *uses* Jabber, sadly enough.

  12. Before putting on your tinfoil hat... by dmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this story is probably going to get a lot of people riled up. However, it is still my understanding that the NSA goes to great pains to avoid intercepting any communication that comes from a U.S. citizen. They are strictly prohibited from doing so.

    If you are a U.S. citizen, your main privacy concerns should be with the FBI and the DoJ with their powers granted by the Patriot Act.

    1. Re:Before putting on your tinfoil hat... by applemasker · · Score: 4, Interesting
      History of the NSA and its various pre-911 ops can be found in The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets, both by James Bamford. The story of Glomar Explorer in those books alone is worth the read.

      Although NSA is technically prohibited from performing incercepts on U.S. citizens, they do not shy away from operating against non-citizens here in the U.S. An interesting tale in those books is how, back in the day that Western Union was the only way to transmit internationally, NSA leaned on them to in effect "Bcc" the U.S. Gov't on all incoming / outgoing faxes from the U.N. without the knowledge of our friends or allies. Sweet.

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
  13. Re:Sigh by rjelks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for catching "terrorists", but I agree...scary.

    "'Foreign traffic that comes through the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws, and the NSA has a perfect right to monitor all Internet traffic,' said Mr. Farber, who has also been a technical adviser to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission."

    I've never been under the illusion that internet traffic was private, but could someone tell me what law give them this power? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like the information.

    -

  14. Re: Passive E-Mail Monitoring Leads To Arrest by manavendra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The quoted article seems kinda wierd to me.

    The article starts off with a diabolically, highlighting the boast of a mysterious hacker who works as NSA. No names are quoted. The whole thing is given a hollywood-esque charm (the hacker known only as "Mudhen" (mud hen? duh!), a charming pseudonym for NSA - Puzzle Palace).

    After adding sufficient soundbites to attract reader's attention, besides making one thing is it one of those devious secrets about NSA, it suddenly changes tone and highlights the achievement of NSA "spies". Charming. Other gems:

    "army of cryptographers, chaos theorists"

    "that may have pulled in the first piece of evidence"

    "massive investigation in several countries "

    And then finally a quick rundown on TCP/IP.

    One could almost mistake it for communistic propaganda, if only it hailed the fatherland (or the motherland) as well...

    ps: don't forget, there are no facts or figures mentioned anywhere in it well.

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  15. Re:Nice to hear by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Possibly not - obviously the various PATRIOT acts have changed the landscape somewhat, but hasn't it traditionally been against the law for the US government to monitor US citizens without a warrant? Echelon was established in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and basically provided a mechanism for spying on your own citizens: Canada spies on US citizens, and alerts the US authorities, and vice verca. Insert any combination of UK, Australia and NZ governments here for the full horror.

    In other words - the NSA probably don't need to monitor you. They'll find out the naughty things you're plotting, regardless!

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  16. New Spam Solution by mackman · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need a group of people to start discussing how cheap Viagra, a larger penis, and low-interest home mortages can be used for terrorism. Blip! Suddenly all the spam vanishes off the internet. I always hoped the NSA could be used for good as well as evil.

  17. It's sad... by waterford0069 · · Score: 5, Funny

    when the most interesting thing to you about the entire story is the fact that there is now an IT job open in Ottawa.

  18. E-Mail is public? by flogger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Several years ago I taught some workshops to teachers to let them learn the joys of email. I made apoint to show them that email was not sure and anything written can be read by anyone with some knowledge. After sending some emails back and forth as a class, I logged into the mail server and showed them what they had written to each other. Even though they were upset that I could see the email, they walked away remembering the message:

    Don't send anything in the email that you don't want printed in the classified ads of the local paper. Because sending email is like sending a postcard. Every postman between here and there can read what you've said.

    What makes me wonder is that these "terrorist" were sending email that was unencrypted? [tinfoil hat] Or maybe, the NSA were able to get backdoors to encryption technology and that what what is passively being listened to. [/tinfoil]

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
  19. Re:Yea by Peyna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The people that founded the US were not terrorists in the sense that these people are. They didn't go to England and kill thousands of citizens in order to scare the English into leaving them alone. It was also very well known who they were, as they acted quite publicly with their intentions, and even sent a nice note to England lining out their complaints and putting their names on the bottom.

    Terrorists target civilians, remain anonymous as often as possible, and their goal is often annihilation rather than separation.

    --
    What?
  20. Re:Sigh by hazem · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually... it has apparently been declassified:

    From http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interes ting-people/200110/msg00157.html

    Out of curiosity I went hunting for info on the United States Signals
    Intelligence Directives (USSIDs) I had to be aware of in a former line of work.

    Much to my surprise, USSID 18, which outlines procedures for the NSA's
    collection of data on "U.S. persons" was declassified just over a year ago.

    I thought the document might be of interest to IPers, especially at this time.

    An introduction, and links to the archives can be found at:

    http://cipherwar.com/news/00/nsa_surveillance.htm

    (From the site above:)

    In the aftermath of revelations in the 1970s about NSA interception of the
    communications of anti-war and other political activists new procedures
    were established governing the interception of communications involving
    Americans. The version of USSID 18 currently in force was issued in July
    1993 and "prescribes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities
    to ensure that the missions and functions of the United States SIGINT
    System (USSS) are conducted in a manner that safeguards the constitutional
    rights of U.S. persons."

    (And a bit from USSID 18, itself - any errors in transcription are my fault:)

    SECTION 1 - PREFACE

    1.1. (U) The Fourth Amendment ot the Unites States Constitution protects
    all U.S. persons anywhere in the world and all persons within the United
    States from unreasonable searches and seizures by any person or agency
    acting on behalf of the U.S. Government. The Supreme Court has ruled that
    the interception of electronic communications is a search and seizure
    within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It is therefore mandatory that
    signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations be conducted pursuant to
    procedures which meet the reasonableness requirements of the fourth
    amendment.

    1.2. (U) In determining whether United States SIGING System (USSS)
    operations are "reasonable," it is necessary to balance the U.S.
    Government's need for foreign intelligence information and the privacy
    interests of persons protected by the Fourth Amendment. Striking that
    balance has consumed much time and effort by all branches of the United
    States Government. The results of that effort are reflected in the
    references listed in Section 2 below. Together, these references require
    the minimization of U.S. person information collected, processed, retained
    or disseminated by the USSS. The purpose of this document is to implement
    these minimization requirements.

    1.3. (U) Several themes run throughout this USSID. The most important is
    that intelligence operation and the protection of constitutional rights are
    not incompatible. It is not necessary to deny legitimate foreign
    intelligence collection or suppress legitimate foreign intelligence
    information to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. Persons.

    1.4. (U) Finally, these minimization procedures implement the
    constitutional principle of "reasonableness" by giving different categories
    of individuals and entities different levels of protection. These levels
    range from the stringent protection accorded U.S. citizens and permanent
    resident aliens in the United States to provisions relating to foreign
    diplomats in the U.S. These differences reflect yet another main theme of
    these procedures, that is, that the focus of all foreign intelligence
    operation is on foreign entities and persons.

  21. Officially, yes; however... by parvenu74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the big pushes after 9-11 was for all of the intelligence agencies to "cooperate."

    When I was in the navy we conducted counter narcotics patrols off the coast of Colombia and Panama. Since the military is not allowed to engage in law enforcement (that pesky Constitution and all) we simply had a Coast Guard team (they're Dept of Transportation and not Defense, so they *can* do law enforcement) that took care of the actual boarding of vessles and law enforcement. In fact, it had to be the Coast Guard person on watch who initiated the request to investivate/board a vessle. There was no "official" cooperation between the military and the Coast Guard on this, but when you get orders on the secure circuit to "think about getting to these coordinates in exactly 12 hours" which result in the Coastie on watch saying "Oh hey -- there's a boat... let's board him!" can you deny that there is unofficial cooperation going on?

    (There were further stories about SEALS and other special forces folks who were officially discharged from the military and transferred to "another agency" for two weeks at a time in order to engage in "direct action law enforcement" before "deciding to reenter the military." It's call "sheep-dipping" and is just one more thing for the tin-foil-hatters to worry about...)

    I suspect that this is probably what's going on with the NSA et al. If the agency in question either thinks/knows they're looking at a US citizen, they can just drop a pointer to the intel in the inbox of an agency who *can* legally handle it (Oh geez -- I wonder where *that* lead came from?). Or there are teams of "not officially NSA folks" who just happen to be working at NSA alongside the others who are legally allowed to investigate US citizens (similar to Coasties on US Naval vessles for counter-narc activities).

    Take your pick as to the method in use or make up another, but I am pretty sure it's going on and will not be going away anytime soon.

  22. Stenography by pr0nbot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh for ALLah's sake! I can't believe the waY OUR governments spy on us. Any AraB, AS Ever, is a suspect. This is going too fAR Even for Bush. It won't BE LONG before they'll be trawling slashdot looking for hidden messages. I certainly won't be moving TO the US any time soon.

  23. Re:Sigh by somethinghollow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's convenient that the first instance of e-mail "bugging" resulting in action is against a terrorist. Right now, for the most part, the Average American (tm) is totally commited to giving up freedom for security (which conjures up the quote about said person deserving neither). Basically, since it stopped a terrorist, it completely validated this breach of privacy. I'm pretty sure that new initiatives like Carnivore will be openly embraced by said Average American (tm). The damage the terrorists have done is far beyond the deaths of Americans.

    Tricksy hobbitses tries to takes away our privacies! Must protect the precious...

  24. Media coverage by kbahey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do not know if the guy is guilty or not. A trial will tell us, in due time.

    However, the media coverage of the whole thing sucks.

    His father, Mahboob A. Khawaja, has been detained in Saudi Arabia, where he is a professor at some university. The media reports that the father wrote articles critical of the West's meddling with the Muslim World's affairs. He wrote a book called Muslims and the West.

    How is that relevant to anything? Is it an attempt to tie genuine legitimate criticism to terrorism somehow?

    I did some searching on the father, and found quite a few articles, most of it critical to the Arab rulers than anything else. Seems he places blame where it belongs, whether in the West or in the Arab world.

    This reminds me of the terms "terrorism", "anti-Americanism", ...etc. all these are misused terms in these confusing times.

    This whole thing about "guilt by association" got to stop.

  25. Re:Sigh by lamz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure which part is worse, email monitoring (sure, they SAY it's passive...) or the terrorist activities.

    You're not sure? I am. Terrorism is worse than reading someone else's email.

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  26. A few reasons... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    2. What makes you think that the encryption systems available to the general public aren't easily cracked by the boys in Virginia and Maryland?

    1. You can not brute force a 256+ bit encryption. It'd be like every atom of earth (2^171) solving at 1THz (2^40) for a million years (2^45). So it must be an algorithm attack.

    2. A lot of encryption theory is developed outside the US or in academia as theoretical mathematics. They do not have a monopoly on intelligence, or on trying to crack them.

    3. Most encryption protocols rely on well published, well researched topics, like difficulty of factorization as opposed to multiplication. For them to have it would imply that a) such a solution exists and b) that they, but not anyone outside of their community would find it.

    4. Most encryption protocols are vastly overengineered compared to the threats. Like, e.g. an opponent with a million times more computing power (-20 bits) or capable of instantly rejecting 99% of the keys (-7 bits) would have nearly no influence on the difficulty.

    In short, there's every reason to believe that your favorite three-letter agency will capture the input before encryption or after decryption, due to a flawed implementation, unsecure handshake or through a man-in-the-middle attack than breaking the encryption/algorithm itself.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  27. Would it change the discussion by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If we changed "Email" to "mail" and made the same statements? Do we grant ourselves the right to read every piece of postal mail that goes through the US? Why stop there? Why not search mail and packages? And luggage...oops, we already do that one. Where does it stop? The Supreme Court has never met an unreasonable search.

    It's all well and good when the bad guys get caught...right up until the definition of "bad guys" gets changed. Yesterday there was an article about the DOJ labeling pornographers as "bad guys." There's no logical end. What's to stop someone being labeled as a bad guy for not going to church, or not supporting the government, or not going along with whatever intrusion-of-the-day on your privacy? It's not that big of a change from where we are now.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  28. Suicide bombers are not stupid by tehanu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, if you look at the Palestinian suicide bombers a lot of them are well-educated and middle class (by Palestinian standards). Some were not even particularly religious. In fact I believe some of them were even university students studying subjects like law. The 9/11 suicide bombers - quite a few of them were well educated and came from relatively rich families. Despite the hatred they nutured for the West they spent years studying in Western universities, getting Western friends and even girlfriends. This takes as much intelligence as any good spy in a foreign country. To hide your true self, blend in, become one of the enemy. They even learnt how to fly planes. A suicide bomber has to be smart to succeed. They have to be someone who can act on their own. Once they are set loose they are on their own. They have to negotiate their way to the target. They have to be able to act well enough to blend in to the crowd to do the maximum damage. If something goes wrong they have to negotiate the obstacles by themselves with no one to help them. Of course there is a lot of psychological preparation as well (brainwashing) but that's nowhere near the same thing as stupidity.

    Of course there are stupid ones as well but that's true for everything.

  29. So what did he plan to do? by KlausBreuer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All I hear is "planning a terrorist act".

    These days, planning a street party can be a 'terrorist act'. Handing out pamphlets in Washington, despicting GWB as a sheep, explaining why he's such a nut, could be a terrorist act.
    Mooning the traffic on an interstate could be a terrorist act.

    Anybody know?

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  30. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by The+Vulture · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was most definitely about the oil. But not necessarily the United States getting the oil. The U.S. just needed to stop Iraq from selling oil in Euros and devaluing the U.S. currency even further.

    Not from the "mainstream" press, but excellent articles detailing of how Iraq switching from the U.S. dollar (approved by OPEC in the early 70's as the official currency for oil) to the Euro for oil could seriously harm the U.S. economy.

    Not Oil, but Dollars vs. Euros
    Iraq, the Dollar and the Euro

  31. Re:Jobs by FredThompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boy, is that way off-base.

    Land Mines have a military use. Did you forget that? Until there is a reliable method for smart mine or other area suppresion weapon like FireStorm, they are the most effective way to prevent an adversary from moving across land.

    The idea that politicians want to keep land mines to ensure jobs is ridiculous. Upon what facts do you base that statement? Do you have any idea how few people are actually employed making them?

    Regarding the Kyoto treaty, have you ever read it? American factories were to be restricted with regard to their emissions yet Chinese, Indian and Eastern European factories were not. When was the last time you visited an industrial complex in one of those areas? They're horrible with all kinds of unfiltered liquid and gaseous emissions. How long have you been reading Slashdot? Haven't you ever seen the articles about disassembly of circuit boards in China?

    Kyoto hid under the cloak of global warming which is really just a political thing. Sure, people can affect the environment to some extent but thinking we are destroying the environment is not only scientifically invalid, it's almost unspeakably arrogant and naive. We live in the middle of a planet-sized filter which recycles virtually everything within itself. We can't predict the weather 5 days in advance yet global warming zealots claim to understand environmental cycles?!?! Riiiight.

    The Kyoto accord was NOT ratified by the non-U.S. countries who tried to get the U.S. to commit to follow it. Would American companies have been forced to shut down or move operations overseas? Yes. Think, where would they have moved manufacturing? Probably to countries which were exempted from the accord. How, exactly, would moving production from the U.S. to areas which were to be exempt from environmental limitations contribute to a cleaner environment?

    The Kyoto accord was an attempt to hobble American industry by countries which are not able to match the U.S. level of productivity because of their political environments.

    As much as possible, producers of any product or service want to be as physically close to their customers as possible. Transportation and time differences cost money, real money.

    Your comments were pure socialist rhetoric. THey have no basis in the reality of our physical world which is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

  32. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by pcb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do Canadians always talk to Americans with that pathetic tone. We are, who we are. Don't be such an apologist...it makes everybody look bad. Canada, like every other country, is just a bunch of people trying to get through life as best they can. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we get it right. There is nothing to apologize for.

    -PCB

    --
    'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
  33. Re:+1 Ane by mwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um, so newborns should be part of the unemployment figure because they don't have jobs? That's what "the unemployed" ought to mean, strictly speaking, but the result would be a strikingly useless number.

    The phrase usually means "people who are seeking employment but haven't found it." That is a very useful number. Those who aren't seeking, don't get counted. If you want to be counted, show up where they're counting.

  34. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Easy buddy, he's suggesting no such thing.

    What he is suggesting is don't be surprised that groups of people around the world grow to hate the US so much that they WILL fly airplanes into buildings. Not because of the actions of individual Americans, but because of the ongoing actions of every American Government for 50 years. How many despots do they have to put in power (or return to power, like in Iran) before the common people of the country start hating them? How many death squads and murderous rebel groups should they support and fund (Nicaragua and El Salvador) before the regular folks stop believing the "peace and freedom" tripe they claim to espouse.

    Do you know what day today is, sparky? It is the 10th anniversary of the start of the genocide in Rawanda. 800 000 people killed in 100 days. That's faster than the Nazis did it at Auchwitz and Treblinka. You know what else? Canadian General Romeo Dalaire had been begging the UN, the US and the other major powers for more troops and more equipment for 3 months prior to this infamous date because he had been tipped off of the impending genocide. He was even forbidden to use the troops and equipment he had to confiscate the weapons he had found, which probably would have prevented the genocide. And do you know what the US did to help? They (along with Britain and France) VETOED a UN Security Council resolution that would have sent the troops and equipment to Rawanda and allowed General Dalaire to conduct opperations. The US signed the death warrant of 800 000 innocent civilians, because preventing genocide is not in the best interests of the US. Why aren't you crying for them? They most certainly did not diserve to die. Too bad there wasn't oil in Kigali, the 1st Marine Expiditionary Force would have been in there in a heart beat....

    It is the selfish actions of your government that make people hate the US so much they want to fly planes into buildings. The policies of the US government kill and enslave far more people on a daily basis than all the terrorist attacks they have ever suffered combined. Why aren't you upset by that?

    No one deserves to die like your friend Amy. Nor do they deserve to be hacked to death with machetes, or murdered and dumped at El Playon because the voted for the wrong party. Don't pretend that the US government condoning the latter has nothing to do with the former. Until you realize that, expect a lot more 9/11-type attacks in your future.

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha