"Dark Alleys" on the Internet

nokilli writes "Sounding the alarmist tone many of us became used to in the early days of the web, The New York Times has a story that talks about "national security" concerns over the myriad ways in which two people (i.e., terrorists) can communicate using the Internet today [NYT=Kneel before Zod]. They're talking about monitoring chat rooms, email servers, etc. I'd like to see how they plan on monitoring my mage as it talks to your cleric in some obscure, nearly impossible to reach (unless you're level 50) corner of our favorite MUD."

Comments

sniff

[Tom]

I'd like to see how they plan on monitoring my mage as it talks to your cleric in some obscure, nearly impossible to reach (unless you're level 50) corner of our favorite MUD."

It's called sniffing.
Either on the wire, or if the MUD software encrypts traffic, on your end (via trojan) or the server end (via court-order).

My personal opinion

[SpooForBrains]

Anyone writing on technological matters in a popular publication should be required to have a modicum of a clue.

Call me old fashioned.

Re:My personal opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anyone writing on technological matters in a popular publication should be required to have a modicum of a clue.

Why? It doesn't seem to apply to 'other' matters.

Data is not the same as intelligence.

[Jaywalk]

And what gives them the bright idea that they can eliminate "dark alleys" on the net any more than dark alleys can be eliminated in real space? And even if every dark alley were well lit, that doesn't mean that they're being effectively watched. The sheer volume of information being exchanged precludes effective review of that data.

It would make a lot more sense to focus on effectively handling the data available than simply adding to the flood of data already at hand.

Re:Data is not the same as intelligence.

[pete-classic]

And what gives them the bright idea that they can eliminate "dark alleys" on the net any more than dark alleys can be eliminated in real space?

This is going to sound like a paranoid rant. I guess it is. But then, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

What gives you the idea that "they" really believe the bullshit that they shovel? "They" always want a little more authority, so they can protect you from terrorists, or save your kids from drug pushers, or fight "the war on poverty."

Is it possible, just possible, that all of these things are nothing more than thinly veiled power-grabs?

Pierce the veil.

-Peter

I can still remember the times

[Timesprout]

when communication was considered a good thing.

Re:I can still remember the times

[maxwell demon]

Really? You know communication is quite similar to communism, it's just the ending which was exchanged. So how can something which is that similar to communism be good?

Re:I can still remember the times

[zx75]

I remember when communism was considered a good thing.

Hint: no social or economic system is inherantly good or bad, some have advantages over others and vice versa. It is the leader who determines how a system is used that determines whether that instance of it is good or bad.

Already tapped....

[ayjay29]

>>I'd like to see how they plan on monitoring my mage as it talks to your cleric in some obscure, nearly impossible to reach (unless you're level 50) corner of our favorite MUD.

The clerics in obscure level 50 corners of all MUD games are FBI agents. Did you not know that??

Re:Already tapped....

[dasunt]

The Internet: Where men are men, women are men, and little girls are FBI agents.

SLAP * back to reality

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see how they plan on monitoring my mage as it talks to your cleric in some obscure, nearly impossible to reach (unless you're level 50) corner of our favorite MUD."

They put a packet sniffer on the ethernet cable? Because your mage, my cleric, and the impossible to reach corner of the dungeon are not actually in a mythical world of make-believe, but just linked structs in heap memory? You retarded?

Futile

[teiresias]

To try and tap every conversation throughout the many internet communications outlets is as futile as trying to tap the hundreds of phone lines and overhearing conversations on streets (nevermind needing court orders). Big Brother is big but the populace is bigger. There is no way to create a large enough agency to not only collect but also analyze the data that would be collected.

It's a concern but not a very legitamate one.

Re:Futile

[TGK]

What you have hit upon is a concept in Political Science known as the Carceral (spelling may be off). Discueed at length by philosopher Michel Foucault (pronounced Foo-co) The basic concept is that, because you are always subject to monitoring and can not know when you are being watched, you will always behave like you're being watched.

The idea was first set forth as a method of perfectly controlling a factory. The premise was that a manager or observer would sit at some central station observing employees who he could see but who could not see him. As the employees could be under scrutiny at any given time, they had no choice but to assume that they were always under scrutiny.

The Carceral is a prison, not for the mind, but of the mind. Have you ever stopped at a red light when there was no one for miles? That's the classic example of the Carceral in action.

We see this all around us, every hour of every day. The RIAA uses it to deter file traders. The Federal Government uses it to deter tax cheats. Walmart uses it to prevent shoplifting.

The online world is a different place, however. Security and scrutiny are something the individual has as much power to prevent as the observer has to employ. Use of sophisticated encryption systems is within the grasp of many users. Moreover, the huge volume of traffic does make monitoring even a meaningful portion hugely difficult.

Remember, the challenge is not to monitor all the traffic on the Internet, but to monitor enough that people will assume that you can monitor it all. Just as the RIAA can't sue every file trader, the Feds can't monitor every bit and byte that flows over the wires. That said, the RIAA can monitor enough to make you think twice about loading up a P2P client, and the Feds might be able to monitor enough to make terrorist organizations choose a less convenient, less efficient, and less sophisticated method of communication. That in and of itself is a victory.

The consequences for the rest of us will be just another casualty in this war on terror. Chalk it up there with free speech, privacy, and equal protection under the law.

Re:Futile

[jc42]

Amazon.com does a pretty fucking good job of offering me other books I "might be interested in."

Well, I personally find myself often breaking out in laughter at some of the things they suggest for me. Granted, some of their suggestions are good. But others are truly bizarre, and I find myself wondering why they would link me to that.

Now, with amazon.com, I can just chuckle and go on to what I'm looking for. But when it comes to government investigators, such things aren't funny. You can end up in jail indefinitely without trial because of your "associations". Or, more subtly, you can be put on lists and locked out of things like potential good jobs because of the suspicion that you are linked to someone or something that the current administration doesn't like. And those links will be generated by software that's probably even flakier than amazon's.

Example: Some years back, when my wife was in grad school, she made friends with a Russian woman who was there (Boston University) on a scholarship. The woman discovered she was pregnant soon after coming to the school, and when delivery time came, my wife was handy and gave her a ride to the hospital. Even more fun, after the birth, my wife helped out a bit by doing things like picking up the baby pictures - and paying with a credit card.

Ever since then, we've been getting junk-mail catalogs for baby/children things, and the catalogs have followed the child's age. We mostly think this is funny, as do most of the people we tell about it.

But we are aware that there's a potential problem here. The databases show that we have a close personal connection to this Russian woman. Today that doesn't mean much. 30 years ago, it would have put us on some seriously-bad government lists. 20 years from now, who knows? Especially when you consider that, when the kid reaches 18 years, he will have a choice of which citizenship he wants to claim. Depending on how things go in Russia, he could well make the rational decision to be an American. Naturally, we'd welcome him and help him, though the clique in the White House then might not.

An even funnier part of the story is that we learned a year or so after the birth that the people at the hospital apparently had a bit of confusion. Since the mother was accompanied by another woman rather than a man, they put my wife's name in the "father/husband" slot. Her name could be a man's name, though it's usually female. And Boston-area medical people are known for their helpfulness towards people in "non-traditional" family arrangements. We've told some of our gay friends about this, and they think it's hilarious that my wife is "father to a Russian baby".

But we do have grounds to be nervous about what might happen when, say, Pat Robertson becomes president, and sets up a program to purge the nation of gays. Will the database say that we're part of the problem? I'd guess that they say this right now, though our current leader merely wants to prevent gays from getting married or insured, and isn't talking about jailing or killing them. And even if they figure out that the birth certificate is wrong, investigations would show that we do have gay friends.

If you look at the history of US government subversive lists, there's good grounds for worry here. Right now, we may think it's all funny. And it gives us lots of cred in "liberal" (and gay;-) circles. But we're both computer geeks, and know well how screwy databases can be. We've both worked on them and experienced the frustration of keeping the data sane. We understand how hopeless it is to expect government or corporate databases to contain only valid information. And we're following stories like this one ...

Obviously the answer is simple...

[cnelzie]

...we need to get rid of the entirety of the Internet. It's the only way to save the world from the dark forces of terrorists that want to meet in 'dark alleys' and plot the destruction of the modern world.

After that, we should destroy cell phones, especially the ones that have 'no contract' that can be picked up at a local drugstore, used for a week and then be tossed away.

Our Modern world has just made it to easy for those 'evil ones' to communicate about destroying us. We should foil all their plots by going back to pre-80's technology levels. That will show them!

Re:Obviously the answer is simple...

[richie2000]

We should foil all their plots by going back to pre-80's technology levels.

Aye, pre-1880 levels. Let them try hijacking horse-pulled buggies and drive them into buildings!

Re:Obviously the answer is simple...

[akadruid]

We should foil all their plots by going back to pre-80's technology levels.

Aye, pre-1880 levels. Let them try hijacking horse-pulled buggies and drive them into buildings!

Back then, terrorists were different. They won, and then they wrote the history books.

See: History of the United States (1776-1789)

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would have thought of the Internet?

Definitions

[Richie1984]

What worries me is not government monitoring of the internet. We already know that this goes on to some extent and if we really want to communicate privately, using an unencrpyted email or an IRC chat room isnt the way to go about it. The majority of us are knowledgable enough to communicate with some degree of security.

My main concern is their definition of a 'terrorist'. I have no problems with law enforcement agencies going after real, or suspected terrorists, but I do disagree with the slow creep of the word to include people who have different opinions then the government.

Then again, I'm more paranoid than most. Probably nothing to worry about. Probably...

Re:impossible

[Norgus]

Its a stupid waste of resources, trying to monitor the entire internet(s?).
Terrorists and such will continue to communicate efficiently and every other net user will have no privacy, and have to put up with and inherant network strain placed by this spying crap.

Re:impossible

[justkarl]

they can monitor everything they want, but it will be in vein. There are so many avenues for communcation they can't monitor everything..

Remember, kids:
Vein: Blood vessel that returns blood to the heart.
Vain: without sucess or excessively proud.

Reminds me of a quote I saw recently

[jandrese]

<Stormrider> I should bomb something
<Stormrider> ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
<Stormrider> Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
<Elzie_Ann> I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
*** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
<FBI> We saw it anyway.
*** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )

bash.org is great.

Re:impossible

[hrieke]

Needle in the haystack issue. Too much communication happens online- certainly they can have boxes report back a copy of all of the traffic from some ISP, or even all of the traffic out of / into an ISP, but to give analysis of that data is not something I'd like to be tasked with.
And the real usefullness would be after the fact, and only when someone has told all that they know (and the goverment has all of the data recorded too).

Thinking back to the cold war, the most successful communciations that the Russians spies would do where out in the open- usually simple things like colored thumbtacks on public bulletin boards, which unless you knew what to look for and then what it ment, it was very easy to miss.

What about

[afstanton]

encrypted spam? There is frequently junk in spam that looks like noise, but encrypted data also can look like noise. If you send out a million spams and just make sure that a couple of them go to the people you want to get the message...well, there ya go.

Re:What about

[Steve B]

Precisely -- hiding a message in spam also has the advantage of defeating traffic analysis (there's no way to tell which of the millions of recipients knows that the exact percentage on the "mortgage offer", or whatever, is a code).

Internet caffe ?

[aepervius]

Even simpler, go to a random internet caffe every day, use a random chat cleint on a random server using passphrase convenied in advance. Why make it complicated when you only need good legs or a good trnasportation system in a good metropole to avoid wiretapping ?

Re:Internet caffe ?

[tlhIngan]

Actually, the most secure way of communicating is to simply appear normal. If you try to hide your communications, it sticks out in the normal flotsam and jetsam of data. But if your traffic looks more or less like Joe Sixpack's traffic, it's hard to tell.

E.g., consider two coffeeshops across the street from one another. One guy sits in one and has a cup of coffee, reads the paper, etc. The other sits in the other and does the same. If they see each other every day, no attack. If one is absent, *boom*. Given the way people work, it's a regular, repeatable event, and can be used to communicate data (albeit slowly) - perhaps the paper is folded slightly differently, or carried away vs. left on the table.

The real trick to hiding is to make it look like you have nothing to hide. And that is what makes it difficult.

More ominous than that...

[Blitzenn]

I think that the message here is much more ominous than what the surface story tells. The young man simply stated his great dislike for the United States government that is in place. He also made a flip comment about himself being a pilot of one 9/11 planes that crashed into the towers. I only see a crime here if he actually did the task. What are we becoming here in the US? It scares me to think that if I say that I hate GWBush with a passion that I will have the FBI crashing down my door. This smacks to me of totalitarianism (or however you spell that). Don't even THINK of hating us or we will take you down! It seems to me that this will go a long long way down the road of stopping anyone from questioning this government if they happen to think they are doing something wrong. Is the strong suggestion that your opinion of someones elses actions is wrong so wrong itself? I fear for the future of a people that are suppressed in this way. The scary part is that most of the people don't see it happening around them. They truely think this is a 'defensive' measure to secure 'their' lifestyle. What did this kid do to hurt anyone? NOTHING! He though something, spoke some words and went about his life as normal. There should not be a penalty for not agreeing with someone else and trying to change their position with words. Isn't that what the US is supposed to stand for?

Re:More ominous than that...

[Kurt Granroth]

I think that the message here is much more ominous than what the surface story tells. The young man simply stated his great dislike for the United States government that is in place. He also made a flip comment about himself being a pilot of one 9/11 planes that crashed into the towers. I only see a crime here if he actually did the task.

If that was the only reason he was arrested and indicted, then I agree that this is a scary precedent. But is it the reason? I don't think this story gives that kind of detail. This is all it says:

Mr. Walker, a 19-year-old student, is accused, among other things, of using his roommate's computer to communicate with - and offer aid to - a federally designated terrorist group in Somalia and with helping to run a jihadist Web site.

"I hate the U.S. government," is among the statements Mr. Walker is said to have posted online. "I wish I could have been flying one of the planes on Sept. 11."

It doesn't say that he is accused of making treasonous speech or inciting war or anything at all of the type. He is accused of offering aid and running a website for known terrorist groups. The quotes from Walker seem to be included only to make him look obviously guilty to the reader.

Still, this article doesn't say very much at all. It's entirely possible that those statements really are the crux of the case ("offering aid"). If that's the case, then I agree, this case if far more serious than anything to do with "wiretapping the Internet". This would be a dagger deep into the heart of our notion of free speech.

So with that in mind, I tend to think that this case is something else. Yes, I know we've lost a lot of our rights concerning free speech in the past few years, but I don't think we've gotten quite that far.

Not about Intelligence. It's about Fear.

[Fantastic Lad]

The point is not to know what's going on with every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, but to limit and control the actions of every man, woman and child.

This is best done when fear is in place. --You don't have to be aware of accurate information on everybody. You just need instant access to accurate information on everybody. That way, you can make your quotas of public beatings and arrests without hassle. This, by itself, provides the impetus for the good sheep to stay good sheep.

Harvesting begins shortly. Please stand by.

-FL

When will we learn...

[Anonymous Custard]

This whole "war on terror" is misguided. Finding existing terrorists and listening to them talk online WILL NOT STOP TERRORISM.

You can't fight terror with force because as much as you may disagree with the terrorists' goals, to them and their followers they are freedom fighters. If you were a freedom fighter rebelling against what you thought was an unjust foreign force, would them invading your half of the world make you give up? No, you'd fight harder than ever and this time you'd recruit your friends. Would knowing that your communications might be intercepted stop you? No, you'd just find new ways to communicate.

I wonder what percentage of our "defense" budget goes toward lobbying politicians to try to make policies that don't piss off half the world. That'd do more against terrorism, and for our defense, than any war.

Re:Server Access?

[leuk_he]

They can arrest and hold you (without charges) just for being a (terrorist) suspect, what you are right now. The only way to come out of prison is to reveal your password. I hope for you it is just porn.

Re:Uhm

[tylernt]

But who's going to read all those logs? If there are 1 million people online at any given point of time, you're going to need about 1 million people reading logs. The task would be overwhelming.

Throw some nice 2048-bit RSA encryption in there, and the whole thing is impossible.

You know, it's stuff like this that the terrorists want. They want us to lose our freedoms to overzealous anti-terrorism laws, they want us to live in fear. Suggestions like this article must make Bin Laden smile.

Re:Realities. . .

[khrtt]

The question is, do you know why reality is shifting in that direction?

Every country, especially a large a powerful country, needs a fascist government every once in a while, just to teach the moron part of the population to value their freedom. US is long overdue:-)/.

Answer the problem itself

[Khuffie]

You know, instead of spending tremendous energy trying to monitor every single communications method, maybe its better to handle the problem itself?

The US government should switch its efforts to why all these 'terrorists' are targetting it. There's gotta be a reason, and the reason isn't because the US "is a shining beacon of freedom." (why aren't they targetting Holland? Sweden? Finland?).

Catching these terrorists isn't gonna solve the problem: more will popup immediately to take their place. But if the US started to address (and fix) why they're being targetted (their utter arrogance towards other nations), most of this will go away.

Hammer into Anvil

[Thedalek]

Patrick McGoohan, star of the 1960's TV series Secret Agent Man (AKA Danger Man) later went on to write, direct, and star in a show called The Prisoner, which basically amounts to a paranoid Orwellian nightmare mixed with the whimsical trappings of Alice in Wonderland.

In one episode, titled Hammer into Anvil, the protagonist, Number Six, who is constantly being spied upon by the sinister forces who control his mysterious prison (called only "The Village), decides to turn the tables on the chief warden (called "Number Two"). He begins to send secret, encoded messages to nonexistant entities, indicating that he is not really a prisoner, but a mole sent to determine the strength of Village security and staff.

Eventually, he drives the current "Number Two" to a nervous breakdown. It's one of the best episodes.

It seemed somehow relevant.

Re:Server Access?

[fredklein]

They can brute force it if they really wanted to. They have the computing power to do it.

Um, No.

There are easily reachable key sizes that would literally take longer to crack than the universe has left to exist, assuming every atom in the universe was a computer, all working to crack one message.

Re:impossible

[drooling-dog]

Remember, kids:
sucess: not a word
success: achievement of a goal or status

Re:impossible

[Total_Wimp]

We used to say the same thing about electronic dossiers--that storage was so expensive there was no way to keep all that transactional data forever. Now they can.

So they can store it. Can they find it through all the noise?

If out of every 300 million people there are a couple dozen terrorists, how do you expect to find the terrorists talking about bombs through all the talk about bombs in video games, bombs in the movies, blonde bombshells and new cars that are "the bomb"?

Even if you solve storage and you solve relevance, you still have to solve monitoring every delivery avenue. With the incentive of P2P, video games and new hardware you have several new avenues opening up every day. What if they terrorist wanted to communicate via handwritten text on his new Nintendo DS? Is that monitored?

When communication was just phone and post, spies used flashes of light, pigeons and cleverly placed symbols in public locations. There is always a way to communicate without being spotted. Being able to store all you _can_ find will only help a little bit.

TW

Re:Who's going to read it?

[maxwell demon]

Obviously you discussed the slashdot moderation system.

that's it, exactly

[clsc]

>> You know, it's stuff like this that the terrorists want. They want us to lose our freedoms to overzealous anti-terrorism laws,
>> they want us to live in fear. Suggestions like this article must make Bin Laden smile.

What scares me is when it becomes normal for people to include "national security" in their vocabulary, especially people in government. To think that this is happening so few years after the wall finally broke down (you know, that concrete thingy that used to be somewhere in Europe) ... Sad thing is, these people probably don't even know it themselves, and would deny it if the thought ever occured to them. What, Pres. Bush and advisors doing it the communist way?! How's that for a statement?

What we really need is so basic: Freedom of speech, human rights, and free movement of people and goods. Not the opposite - we know what happens when you restrict any of that; history has taught us that lesson over and over again.

Re:Uhm

[akadruid]

I already replied, or I would give you an insightful for that.

You can chalk up more victims to Sept 11th - thousands killed in the WTC, tens of thousands killed in Afganistan and Iraq, and millions accross the world living in fear and oppression.

This sort of thing should be a wakeup call to the masses.

Despite my best attempts, my girlfriend still worries when I get a on train every morning for London. She doesn't worry I'll be run over by a black cab, or raise my blood pressure in a stressful job. Instead, she worries that terrorist will blow up my train, my office, or even 'the whole of London'. The Culture of Fear has her trapped.

Attack based upon presence or lack thereof

[SeanDuggan]

If they see each other every day, no attack. If one is absent, *boom*.
And I thought I had "Oh, shit!" moments when waking up from oversleeping...

Re:Uhm

[unixpro]

Well, I'm a server programmer for a very large, very well-known massivly multiplayer on-line game. We're in the process now of developing the next generation of servers for this game, targeted to be released at the end of next year.

Our legal department has informed me that I am required by the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act to provide a back-door that will allow law enforcement to enter and view any conversation taking place in any of the servers, including private conversations, without being observed. I must also provide a way for the chat, including private chat, to be logged, and we must keep those logs for at least 6 months.

Since chat through our servers cannot be encrypted, there is no 128 bit option.

Big brother is watching you, friends.

Re:Uhm

[1u3hr]

You know, it's stuff like this that the terrorists want. They want us to lose our freedoms to overzealous anti-terrorism laws, they want us to live in fear. Suggestions like this article must make Bin Laden smile.

Really, bin Laden could care less if you live in fear or spend all day high. All you infidels are going to hell anyway. What he wants is to affect American foreign policy. (Which is going to plan.)

As someone who RTFA...

[yetanothermike]

...I thought the most interesting points were those of communicating without sending messages across the internet. The monitoring of a bank account for a $20 ATM withdrawl and saving drafts in a webmail account that are never sent are examples.

The most troubling part of this to me is it comes from the angle that there is an expectation that all communications from "bad guys" can be monitored. If we operate under the expectation that all communications can intercepted we're just setting ourselves up for failure.

The simple act of sending a postcard, or a flag flown on a balcony at a specific time, or a stalled car at a specific point on the road with it's left turn signal on or...

Doesn't our own government use covert means of communication that they think can't be intercepted? If we have them, others do too. Focusing on high tech ways to monitor people who'll use low tech, or no tech, is another example of the arrogance of technology. We need to have many, many layers of security because none of them will work all the time. We can't check all the shipping containers, but we can control communications??

In Other News

[Grax]

It was revealed today that some terrorists had conversations in a private home, highlighting the near impossibility of monitoring everyone's communications at all times.

George Tenet could just as easily have noted how we do not yet know everything that everyone is thinking and we have not figured out how to prevent crimes by monitoring individual's brain waves for possible "dangerous" ideas. If we had this equipment we could eliminate all crime and free thought. Think of how secure we would be then.

Certainly in a free country having free unmonitored conversations isn't such a terrible thing. It isn't fair to just say the magic word "terrorists" and use that as an excuse to remove all privacy and freedoms.