Slashdot Mirror
How The Government Spies On Your Internet Use
intnsred writes "In explaining the recent PATRIOT act ACLU lawsuit, a D.C. civil rights lawyer writes, "I am sure that many of you reading this (and I, likely) have the government in our computers....Until now, we did not know much about how the government goes about this procedure. Now we do." Fascinating details of the case and how easy it is for the gov't to get warrantless access to you through your ISP. This clarifies and expands a previous /. article."
While in their FAQ's they (/.) state that they've only ever removed one comment... how does that apply/work now? Slashdot is an equal target for the PATRIOT act, as well as their hosts and the people who post here... hell even posting under the 'Post Anonymously' option may have certain 'caveats'.
Food for thought people, food for thought.
If all email was encrypted by default the spies would need a lot of computing power.
"What's the point of an 'internet wiretap' when anything important to law enforcement is probably encrypted with a key long enough to take years to crack?
Am I the only person who has 4096-bit RSA?"
(paranoia-filled comment)
That is assuming their isn't some backdoor written into that encryption software that would let the gubermint easily decode your heroine habit with some "master key."
(/paranoia-filled comment)
Numerous words, sentences and entire sections of the documents related to the suit, which are posted on the group's website, remain blacked out.
8 21 4&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=172&tid= 93
Sounds like a job for Claire Whelan, a dictionary and text analysis software.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/16/144
-----
its in your power to sack them if you are unhappy with what they are doing
-----
That must be the special formula crack#9 you're smoking.
-----
Start explaining vociferously to you CongressPerson/Senator what the issue is and act with your ballot
-----
There's no one else to vote for. Dems and Pubs, same body, different head.
-----
Its becoming a concern that the US its leaders and institutions are becoming more and more isolated from the people they are supposed to represent and serve
-----
I'm not going to go tin-foil over the gov't vs. people aspect. I'm more concerned about the petty abuses of power. Say the business exec down the road gets a case of small-penis syndrome because you decided to make fun of middle-aged guys who need Viagra to get it up. Say he talks with his business buddies at the exclusive golf club, the one with the $25k yearly membership, and eventually word gets around and they happen to brush shoulders with someone who can get one of these NSLs. It gets quietly served and honored by the guy over on tee 6 who sits as a VP of the local ISP, and next thing you know you're getting harangued to death and losing your mind 'cuz everyone at work seems to have an inside clue of what your personal likes and dislikes are and you're now the target of an ultimate mind-fsck.
I don't give a rats butt about the gov't anymore. They're big, bad, ugly, and they're going to do whatever they're going to do. I'm now devoting my attention to the petty, vindictive nature of self-important, arrogant, wealthy humans who have skin as thin as crepe paper.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Can you say, rubber hose cryptanalysis? Even if you go quantum, they'll eventually crack you.
And no doubt a real spook could think up moany more.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
terrorists are not that dumb to send unencrypted emails about their plans
they can use web sites, ssl connections, etc
noone is able to monitor (and decrypt) all ssl connections, but if they can get an access to the site itself (when it is running on ISP's server) they can easily get all the information they need
on the other side, i'm running smtp server and web server on my own pc at home
so i'm lucky that i'm not an US citizen, otherwise i would be probably accused of terrorism because FBI cannot get access to my web site just by asking my ISP
Don't bank on it. These guys are casting the net as far and as wide as they can. As far as they can tell, "foodsoft" is a code word inside an encrypted message that refers to the White House. And while they're puzzling over that one, whether for ill or for good, you can rest assured that they will be taking the fine-toothed comb to everything else, with results that you cannot know. Tinfoil hat talk? Certainly. But history has already provided way more than the standard two examples of a state gone overboard against its own citizens. It can, and it will, happen again. Budding tyrants rely on most people's distaste for history, as it allows them to maneuver for their own advantage in a much less restricted environment.
Is it fascism yet?
Obviously the major concern is about the damage done to individual privacy, but there's another side to it that, in the long run, can be just as important.
When a government agency begins covertly compiling personal data on individuals, it sets in motion a long chain of events that can have implications far beyond the act of gathering data.
While it is easily possible to keep such record gathering secret for a period of time, history shows that eventually these efforts tend to make it into the public eye. When that happens, the result is often quite the opposite of what was originally intended.
It has happened over and over that political leaders come into power by virtue of the fact that they were the focus of investigations of entities that lost power. These secret lists eventually turn into a who's who of the next body politic. By focusing on certain individuals in hopes of pinning some dirt of them, the opposite effect is often achieved.
So, like so many things in life, this too is a doubled edged street, or a two-way sword or whatever symmetry metaphor you prefer.
No offense but how would you know? Typically speaking these requests go to heads of operation (position titles vary) and they also include a gag order around them. For example, our local library has received numerous requests. Enough so that to get around the fact that they can not tell staff or effected patrons that requests were issued, they started the policy of announcing when no requests were issued.
It's simple, and effective, and chilling, that the past three staff meetings have had no mention of it.
You mean the totally fake video of nick bergs beheading?
Think about what happens when you cut someones head off while they're still alive.
Then look at the guys doing it, and in particular Zaqwai (sp) who is supposedly a) missing a leg, and b) dead. (According to the CIA)
And now, magically, not only does he have BOTH legs, but he's alive!
Google around a bit, you'll find out what other people have said about it.
Once you get past the fact they're "cutting off a guys head" and analyse the video, you'll start to see..
My email addy? should be easy enough.
There is a simple method of getting around what he describes (if I understand his argument well enough--not being a C programmer, I may not, so proceed with that in mind!).
If you compile everything on your system with a compiler to which you have access to the source code, then you should be able to scrutinize these sources. This is similar to the idea of having code that you wrote yourself, only in this case, you need to have access to not just the program's source, but also the compiler's source. In the OSS world, this is possible, which is why it is likely to be more secure.
Think about it like this: You can only implement Thompson's suggestion if you control both the source and the compiler. In a system like Gentoo, or another ports based setup (BSD's come to mind), this is much more difficult, and would have to be evident at a distribution wide level. But in all these systems, you do have access to the code before you even install the first binary. It would be perfectly feasible to:
1. Examine the code before install, and do the first compile with GCC that you trust. This is a serious bootstrap effort, but possible.
2. Examine the code that you install every time you upgrade.
3. If you are uber paranoid, you could use the Intel compiler to compile GCC (or something of that sort), to avoid GCC inserting it's own nastiness. I am, of course, assuming that that is possible, but I don't see why not.
There are ways around the situation Ken Thompson describes, but they take time, effort, and knowledge. I am not technically capable of doing the routine (I'd be dead lost in the code, and I know it), but there are plenty of people who are. Maybe a "trusted" GCC, signed by the reviewer's GPG sigs, would be a worthy effort. It's just a thought.
****Disclaimer: I am not a C programmer. I don't really know what I'm talking about, and shame on you if you don't critique this mentally before accepting my premises. Now, do some thinking!
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Now if the RIAA can succeed in getting online filesharing declared to be an act of terrorism, they can use these National Security Letters to get around that pesky court order that put a stop to their warrantless search powers.
Well, then assume I'm stupid and show me exactly where this evidence is. If there's so damn much of it, it shouldn't take you any time at all to provide examples.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
The description of this case reminds me of two things. The almost farcial nature of many of the rules and regulations in Catch 22. Secondly the way trials were conducted in China when the Communists came to power. As my grandparents tell it, they'd put you on trial but the best thing is they *won't* tell you OR the public what the charge is! The assumption being that if the government puts you trial, obviously you are guilty and the whole point of the trial is to exact your public confession. To make it even better they were allowed to beat and torture you until you confess. The problem being that not knowing what the charge is, even if you wanted to falsely confess to stop them beating you, you couldn't! The only way around this is if you had contacts amongst the Communist officials who would tell you the charge so you could say "Yes, I stole Mr Lee's chickens last Saturday". You'd get punished, but at least you'd skip the whole beating and torture business. And of course the info on which the trial is based on were usually informants, of whom they never tell you who it is or what the details of the evidence were (as I said, they didn't even tell you the details of the charge) so that you have absolutely no chance of defending yourself against the evidence as you are not allowed to see any of the evidence!
Of course the details of what's going on in the US is doing is different from what my grandparent's described about China, but the whole farcial nature, the whole "Sorry we can't even talk about what the charge is." (at least the defendents are allowed to know), the whole beating and torture until you confess (Guantonomo Bay), the whole lack of oversight to prevent abuses, the whole "we can't allow you to see/challenge the evidence/witnesses" (that trial in the US right now with that guy connected to 9/11) seems very very similar. And with the recent torture cases in US prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan etc the US is sliding down a very slippery slope.
Wake up and read the following!
The Patriot Act is hideously reminiscent of the "Decree for the Protection of Nation and State" that became law in Nazi Germany in February 1933. Its provisions were described by John Toland, in his masterly "Adolf Hitler", as ostensibly innocuous while in practice destroying every reasonable humanitarian right formerly possessed by the German people. There were "Tribunals set up to try enemies of the state", and Toland observed that Hitler made his legislation (the "Enabling Act") "sound moderate and promised to use its emergency powers "only in so far as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures"." Does that sound horribly familiar? And who would decide whether a measure was "vitally necessary"? " Why, the man wielding total power, of course. ("Trust me!" is ever the cry of the incipient dictator.) So Hitler"s Decree and the Reichstag"s subsequent Enabling Act were never modified or repealed, because they gave the man who was served by a compliant and intensely patriotic legislature the instruments he needed to keep him in total control. This is the reason for Bush"s energetic campaign to prevent the Patriot Act being subject to the existing "sunset clause" whereby most of its more despotic provisions should lapse next year. It was passed by a compliant and intensely patriotic legislature : will it be repealed by one?
Cloughley
Yeah...it originated at my uni.
Anyway; I do quite a bit of 3D work, and also do a bit of compositing to integrate my 3D work into real footage. I have an interest in special effects. You know what the first three things are which struck me about that video?
1) the guy seems too calm for someone who should know enough arabic to know what the guys behind him are going to do to him
2) what a convenient cock up of a zoom, just as they're grabbing for his head to behead him...in sfx land they'd call that a convenient cut so they can montage in the fake. It really is amazingly convenient
3) where's all the blood? They're cutting through his jugulars: the arteries which have the most blood running through them at the highest pressure...ever seen a cow get slaughtered? There should be more blood.
Now the video could be real...but I have to say that, even knowing nothing more about the guys who are supposed to be involved, there are some real convenient (there really is no other word for it) bits in that video. It's not tinfoilhat time, it's just knowing how such things are done fro moving images and some healthy scepticism. I for one would like it if an independant forensic scientist went over that video, together with a special effects artist.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
If you are that worried about 'throwing away' your vote find a friend a friend on the opposite side of politics, who is equally disturbed by goings on, and convince her to vote 3rd party too.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
First off, I'm no fan of the PATRIOT Act. I hate it. I'd have no problems with it being used against foreign born terrorists (as all but one in our history have been).
/.er won't....
If "only applies to non US Citizens" were added to the PATRIOT Act, I'd be OK with it.
That said, I have to point out something the average
It's been almost three years since 9/11/01 without a terrorist attack against this country. If you or I had predicted that on 9/11, we'd have been called nuts.
So, obviously, what the government is doing is working. That is not to say that it doesn't need reform and more oversight (the secrecy scares the shit out of me), but you can't argue with the results.
However, I'm in a quandry. I am NOT an ends justifies the means person, but what if thousands of lives would be forefit if the PATRIOT Act went away?
Corporatism != Free Market
Well, Thompson's "hack" is a not simple (nor all that likely, right now) in practice, but is certainly not simple to get around in theory. To put it simply, it's a problem of infinite regress. Even if you have the source to the compiler, you may not have the source to the compiler which will compile the new compiler. AND, even if you write a compiler in assembly (not recommended), you do not have access to a hack planted in the assembler. As Thompson points out, such a viral "hack" could planted in the very hardware microcode of the processor.
Here's where things become suddenly a little bit scarier. With things like Palladium and other "Trusted Computing" platforms being proposed by BIOS and hardware manufactures, some sort of security backdoor embedded so deeply that it is inaccessible to programmers becomes a real possibility. Already Trusted Computing proponents are arguing for some sort of hardware-level censorship of software ("For Your Security" (TM) ), so taking the next proactive step to allow rights owners, investigators, etc. unfettered access to your system (again, "In The Interest of National Security And/Or Federal Law" (TM) ) at a hardware level becomes not only possible, but even plausible.
Right. They're all the same. Always have been, always will be.
* Carter tried to distance the US from dictators, took the Soviets at face value when they claimed to desire co-existence, and was shocked when they invaded Afghanistan.
* Reagan believed in the notion that it's better to have a dictator who is on our side than a totalitarian ruler opposed to us, and he pushed the Soviet Union to collapse by forcing them into an arms race they couldn't win.
* Bush 1 put together a very strong alliance to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, but didn't take over Iraq for fear of breaking the trust he had established with the Coalition partners.
* Clinton believed in working in close concert with America's European allies wherever possible, did not believe in unilateral "regime change," and deliberately limited the scope of operations against Serbia and in the Middle East, believing that effective use of American "soft power" ultimately provided better results than constant use of "hard power."
* Bush 2 eschewed long-standing European alliances and incorporated pre-emptive invasion and regime change as a core element in American foreign policy oriented almost exclusively around hard power. His post-liberation plans were based on faith-based intelligence and wishful thinking.
You're so right. No differences between them. Give up your right to vote, and let the knee-jerk flag-waving "Creationism is science" crowd take over America.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to Al Qaeda and its WMD programme", said Steven Kull, director of the Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.
e n6 2437&F_catID=&f_type=source
3 mBJCObArYJ:ww w.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Repor t.pdf
"The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November", he added.
The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the upcoming presidential race in November. Among the 57 per cent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in carrying out the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, 57 per cent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 per cent said they would choose his Democratic foe, John Kerry.
Among the 40 per cent of respondents, who said they believed there was no connection at all between Saddam and Al Qaeda or that ties consisted only of minor contacts or visits, on the other hand, only 28 per cent said they intended to vote for Bush, while 68 per cent said their ballots would go to Kerry.
The survey, which was based on interviews with a random sample of 1,311 respondents in March, was released amid a series of polls that indicate that Bush and Kerry are in a virtual tie less than seven months before the actual election.
http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=
and the actual report (google html pdf conversion)
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:y
enjoy
What bothers me here is not that the goverment monitors internet usage, but rather the amount of censorship it is imposing.
This is an uninformed comment; it fundamentally assumes that politicians never change their minds, and always make their decisions within an unchanging bubble unaffected by circumstances.
;)
the P. act (can't stand to call it by it's full acronym) was passed during a time of overwhelming stress and near hysteria in the U.S. We are in more sober times, now (thanks to two successful invasions and two failing post-invasion reconstructions).
Furthermore, the P. act was passed with an incredible lack of congressional overview; now that we are in more sobered times, politicians who supported the act based on recommendation rather than personally review are now getting around to that personal (well, staff) review (often prompted by consistuents) and are not happy with what they see.
Will the entire P. Act be thrown out? No, but there's now a substantial (and growing) cross-party body of reps who feel that they were duped by the Act i the first place, and they wish to at least neuter its worst provisions. Most laws get changed this way.
Yes, more support needs to be put behind this (growing and already seriously on the D.C. radar) movement, but it's stupid to profess apathy and despiar based on the fact that politicians sometimes act stupiuly. Ya gotta just keep trying.
Please try to have some awareness of the issue before commenting next time.
Well what are the many reasons? The only reasons put forth by the administration that I can find center on the current possesion & construction of WMDs and his history of using them, his human rights violations, and alleged associations with terrorists, and that the man is generally crazy and has been aggressive in the past. I've looked through most of Bush's speeches in early 2003 and that's about it.
And what is the evidence of ties to al Quaeda? That is what started this thread. So far that question is not answered.