Slashdot Mirror


Carnivore No More

wikinerd writes "FBI has retired the controversial Carnivore software, strongly criticized by privacy advocates for its email capturing abilities. However, it is believed that unspecified commercial surveillance tools are employed now. What does that mean for Internet users' privacy?"

194 comments

  1. More of the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just more stuff hidden from view.

  2. In other news by detrino · · Score: 5, Funny

    FBI has begun to install its less intimidating sounding "herbivore" software accross the globe. Vegetarians rejoice.

    1. Re:In other news by JPriest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly, I work for an ISP, we are still installing these things for the FBI. I don't know much about the new version of Carnivore but I can tell you they have some bugs to be worked out still. (eg. they are not entirely passive, and the IP space needs to be added into them.) This makes network changes a PITA because I don't have access to configure new IP blocks into the new Carnivore platform. If they are going to make us install these things they should at least make them work seamlessly :P

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kidding aside, just the like alleged dismantling of the "Office of Strategic Influence" (i.e., intentionally lying to the press), things may go on [CNN] under different project names. cf. also the Total, er, Terrorism, Information Awareness program.

    3. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carnivore falls under the public domain, because it was developed by the Federal Government of the United States. So... where's the source code? I can't even log in to ftp.fbi.gov.

    4. Re:In other news by GtKincaid · · Score: 1

      We can hope and PREY that our emails are now a little bit more secure

    5. Re:In other news by ilyag · · Score: 1

      If I were them, I'd call it 'omnivore'.

    6. Re:In other news by HuckleCom · · Score: 0

      I'll wet my pants when they scrap "Herbivore" and make the all mighty "Omnivore".

  3. Yea... by Heem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they retired carnivore, it's likely only because now they have something "better".. or "worse" depending on how you look at it.

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
    1. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If they retired carnivore, it's likely only because now they have something "better".. or "worse" depending on how you look at it.

      Factless FUD always gets moddy goodness. Good job Slashdot. Keep dragging the credibility of the FOS community throught the mud.

    2. Re:Yea... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      It isn't FUD mongering to assume the worst from your government--it's your duty as a patriot.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:Yea... by mazarin5 · · Score: 1
      If they retired carnivore, it's likely only because now they have something "better".. or "worse" depending on how you look at it.

      Agreed. I would even go so far as to say that if they told us about it in the first place, it's only because they have something worse going on.

      --
      Fnord.
    4. Re:Yea... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pardon me? FUD?

      Given the FBI's history of misconduct, I don't think that this is FUD whatsoever. You claim that this assertion is "factless", but it is really not illogical to presume that if they've done something before, they'll likely do it again.

      In this case, the justification for suspicion is not technically "factual" (this would be near-impossible, since the FBI operates with a great degree of secrecy), but rather, logical. It is logical to presume that an organization which has behaved badly and resists reform intends to continue to behave badly. The fact that they resist oversight and transparency only adds to this perception, and rightfully so.

      FUD is UNFOUNDED suspicion, I might remind you, not well-founded suspicion. I would submit that suspicion toward the FBI is quite well-founded given a history of misconduct from that organization. Please learn what the word (or acronym) means before you throw it around.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    5. Re:Yea... by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Agreed. I would even go so far as to say that if they told us about it in the first place, it's only because they have something worse going on

      Exactly. Whenever government announces that it is considering doing something stupid/outrageous/evil, it means that they have probably already implemented it in secret. Why anybody continues to give them any credence is a riddle for the ages.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  4. Security update by SilverspurG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead, the bureau turned to unnamed commercially-available products to conduct Internet surveillance thirteen times in criminal investigations in that period.

    How much does it cost? I'm really sick of paying for this crap.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    1. Re:Security update by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cost is not the issue for me. Law enforcement costs money, but a certain amunt of it is necessaey. What I DO object to is law enforcement being allowed to operate without proper controls. That leads to a police state.

    2. Re:Security update by SilverspurG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good points but I've progressed past them. In reality, things are just the other way around.

      Objecting to law enforcement operating without proper controls is futile. Proper controls are always argued on a case by case basis anyways, as well they should be.

      Objecting to the cost of law enforcement is the only real consideration. This is the way it works. If we don't object to the cost there will always be a need for more money. Not putting a cap on the cost is inviting corruption.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    3. Re:Security update by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      In reality, both costs and limitations on police powers are a matter for debate. Sure, an excessive budget is an invitation to corruption. However, without safeguards on personal freedoms (enshrined by law and backed up with proper oversight) abuse of power becomes not only possible but likely.

      Law enforcement needs enough money and enough power to get the job done, but the guidelines should be decided by society as a whole, and the use of both the money and the power needs to be monitored.

    4. Re: Security update by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > How much does it cost? I'm really sick of paying for this crap.

      Probably a lot less than our faith-based missile defense.

      BTW, the news says cities are using DoHS grants for everything from civic festivals to funding new speed traps, with an almost complete lack of oversight.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Security update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what it is... as long as it's open source!

  5. Instead.... by chipster · · Score: 3, Funny
    they decided to use free alternatives that work better;
    • tcpdump
    • ettercap
    • Ethereal
    • Kismet
    1. Re:Instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I don't know why the FBI made a special tool called "Carnivore" in the first place. It is just way easier to run filters through packet logs from routers you have bugged. Unless thats all Carnivore did in the first place...

    2. Re:Instead.... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny
      FTA:
      However, it is believed that unspecified commercial surveillance tools are employed now.
      Actually, they just bought Gator :-)
    3. Re:Instead.... by chipster · · Score: 1

      I read that - but why not use existing tools that work rather well? Oh, and I forgot `iptraf` ":)

    4. Re:Instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Honestly, I don't know why the FBI made a special tool called "Carnivore" in the first place.

      Welcome to the world of government contracting. They didn't make it, they spent gobloads of US citizens' tax money to pay someone's buddies to cook up some P.O.S. kludge. It's no wonder they've finally abandoned it in favor of commercial tools. Wonder why you can't look at the source? 'Cause if word got out what a turd of cobbled-together OSS tools it really is, there's be rioting in the streets. On second thought, considering how they can catch U.S. Presidents lying through their teeth and nobody even blinks, they're probably just trying to avoid embarrassment, not riots. I know a guy whose uncle was a big wig consultant on the Carnivore project, and if his nephew is any reflection of his own intelligence level, a wet loaf of bread has got more on the ball. It's not what you know...

    5. Re:Instead.... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      What does FTA mean? Fuck The Article?
      FTA == From The Article
    6. Re:Instead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Article? Do they have articles as well? You mean the summary paragraph isnt the WHOLE Story???? Wow, slashdot....who'd have thunk it!

    7. Re:Instead.... by VagaStorm · · Score: 1

      There is no need to intersect an email if you have full control of the writing prosess :)

      http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5263/1.html *LOL*

  6. No change by kahei · · Score: 4, Funny


    It means no change for Internet user's privacy, but confirms that the FBI weren't up to managing a large project, even in their core area.

    Which leads me to the inescapable conclusion:

    Privatize the FBI! I'm sure Halliburton would love that contract, but McDonald's would surely also be in the bidding. After all, who would suspect a few Ronald McDonalds wandering around the neighbourhood of being agents? Nobody, that's who! And by the time you notice their guns and badges -- TOO LATE, criminal!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:No change by WaZiX · · Score: 1

      Your so right, after all the American governement is allready privatized, so including the FBI is just natural!

    2. Re:No change by newr00tic · · Score: 2, Funny


      [..] After all, who would suspect a few Ronald McDonalds wandering around the neighbourhood of being agents? [..]

      ..Could I have a Quarter-Pound-Me-In-The-Ass with those McCuffs, Occifer please?

      --
      A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
    3. Re:No change by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would explain those wireless headsets they wear.

      And if you see a Ronald McDonald talking into his sleeve, it's a god chance he's an undercover RM..

    4. Re:No change by Servo · · Score: 1

      In certain urban areas, it might be hard to tell the difference between a McDonald's employee carrying a gun and a McDonald's employee who's actually a field agent.

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:No change by StarOwl · · Score: 1

      Hey, you forgot Wal-Mart!

      After all, they have proven skill in maintaining large databases, and everyone knows that they're trustworthy when it comes to consumer's privacy, not to mention their being an all-around good corporate citizen.

    6. Re:No change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, just look back in history about a fellow named "Pinkerton". Because of some of Pinkerton's problems, we have the FBI, which was essentially set up by him anyways.

      At least FBI agents are not used to break up employee strikes.

    7. Re:No change by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Privatize the FBI! I'm sure Halliburton would love that contract, but McDonald's would surely also be in the bidding.

      You seem awfully confident that the contract would be open to bidding...

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  7. Itanium/Carnivore Connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly this is evidence that Carnivore ran on a Microsoft Windows and Itanium platform.

  8. What about encryption? by ravenspear · · Score: 1

    Can Carnivore read email that is SSL encrypted during transfer?

    1. Re:What about encryption? by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not if they don't know what key was used... A better way would be to encrypt the actual e-mail itself instead of relying on the way it is transmitted to keep your content secure. You can never trust the messenger.

      --
      thisnukes4u.net
    2. Re:What about encryption? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not if they don't know what key was used...
      You underestimate us.

      Your local NSA agent, c/o your local FBI agent.
      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    3. Re:What about encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox/Mozilla + Enigmail = PGP encrypted mails.

    4. Re:What about encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on your keysize, password, and (possibly) which algorithm your SSL implementation is using. It could use RC2, RC4, RSA, DES, 3DES, etc. Some of these algs allow a keysize as small as 40bit, although I doubt you would ever see less than 128 bit in a real implementation.

      The chances are very good that the FBI could crack a few 40-bit keys if they had the motive to do so. Even a 128-bit key may be cracked in a matter of hours or days if they threw enough CPU at it (the EFF did this with custom hardware in a few hours.) However, keep in mind that for many apps you're really talking about many keys being generated; one per email, or several per session. Perhaps even more likely they would manage to find your passphrase with a keylogger, again presuming they had a warrant, or whatever passes for a warrant these days. Even *more* likely is that they could brute-force your password since it's probably pretty weak. I think some SSL implementations are also theoretically sussceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack.

    5. Re:What about encryption? by sampowers · · Score: 1

      First off, I find it interesting that everyone in this thread suddenly jumps to talking about how the FBI could brute-force your SSL key, when it's really so much simpler to get access to email. If you're talking about secure POP3 or IMAP, then yes it would be trivial to snarf the email by sniffing for SMTP traffic.

      Can you imagine writing all of your personal information down on the back of a postcard and just dropping it in the mailbox? That's what you're doing every time you click the send button in your email client. Like the previous reply to your question said, it's necessary to actually encrypt the body of your message, and leave sensitive information out of the message subject.

    6. Re:What about encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You underestimate us.

      You know what amuses me about that attitude?

      Knowing people that do in fact work for the government with top secret clearance (NSA and Military) and knowing how HIGHLY incompetent some of them are in almost every facet of computer science. Some are more skilled than others, naturally, but none of them I would consider even remotely on par with the average mid-skilled Geek. No, it isn't an act. Some of these people I've known since highschool, others much longer.

      One of them went so far as to tell me all of the things they could do dispite every claim he made being totally impossible.

      My favorite laughably stupid comment was something to the effect of "They can even monitor your network conversations even if you aren't connected to the internet. They can get in through your power lines and read every e-mail, web-site, and chat you've ever had." People without a clue who want to be taken seriously should at least know WHEN to STFU.

      The smartest one of that I know says the least probably because what he does know he isn't allowed to say. However, I did get him to admit to me on at least one ocassion that for an entire team of people there is normally only one really bright person getting anything done, and their productivy is often stifled and drown out by the sea of stupidity they have to deal with constantly.

      He has also told me that the NSA might not often be much more competent than any reasonably skilled group of sharp geeks (and normally much less) but they are normally good enough to get the job done because most of the time they don't have to work against highly competent people.

      That argument makes sense, for the most part. It's easy to take on 99% of the population when 99% of the population are even less competent than you are.

      He did finally say one thing that bothered me. He said "Don't worry though, if they were watching you and felt you had the technical advantage on them, they'd find other ways of getting to you. When they can't win on that front, they'll just win on another. Compared to you, they have unlimited resources."

      And THAT scares me more than any of their technical abilities.

      It's hard to win against an organization that can throw national security up as a shield from liability for any actions they may take against a person.

      -FUSE-

  9. Oh, the humanity! by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Check this little image from the article. "Carnivore's official logo shows bload-soaked incisors closing over a stream of data". EVIL!

    It's a packet sniffer that reconstructs data (mail and web sites, as it seems from the article), not a boogieman! I agree, it can be a dangerous tool for privacy in the wrong hands, but still, it's not like you can just put it in your PC and start reading your neighour's mail.

    1. Re:Oh, the humanity! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but still, it's not like you can just put it in your PC and start reading your neighour's mail.

      No, you need one of these..
      http://www.systemrecycler.com/shomiti/

    2. Re:Oh, the humanity! by gooman · · Score: 1

      Oh will you behave!
      If you're going to be logical and display common sense, nobody here is going to want to play with you. Now go put on your tin foil hat and play nice.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    3. Re:Oh, the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government created this logo not Security Focus. Besides that, you got a pretty good rant going.

    4. Re:Oh, the humanity! by Taladar · · Score: 1

      If you installed it at your neighbour's ISP you can.

    5. Re:Oh, the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually not even needed. All modern ISP-grade ethernet switches I know of include built-in tapping capabilities. Cisco flavour is SPAN (Switched Port Analyser) or Port Monitor feature. One can capture one or several port's traffic, a whole VLAN, etc.

      A properly configured tap done with SPAN is totally undetectable. The feature is routinely used with sniffers, be it for troubleshooting, intrusion detection probes, forensics, or lawful intercepts.

      Higher-end models even offer RSPAN i.e. remote SPAN, so the sniffer doesn't even need to be on the same switch as the target -- could be in a discreet anonymous law-enforcement cabinet far from the colocation cages.

  10. I have doubts... by camcloud1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They wouldn't have retired it unless they 1. Created a new app that supercedes it or 2. Found another way to retrieve the same information more effectively. Federal security agencies are kinda funny like that.

    1. Re:I have doubts... by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article mentions it was ran on ISPs with no capabilities to monitor their users' Internet usage. I wonder how many they are; for starters, mail is a no brainer to monitor, unless it's webmail on remote server (Hotmail, f.ex.). And even then, the conection is encrypted.

    2. Re:I have doubts... by SilverspurG · · Score: 0, Troll

      RTFA? It wasn't even three paragraphs in...

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    3. Re:I have doubts... by nyekulturniy · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is not necessarily true. They could have developed a system that was so unusable and with so high development costs, that the only thing to do was to pull the plug on the project. The IRS has had to do this at least once in the last decade.

      The better path for the FBI would be to develop a gradual improvement in software, thoroughly testing each app for compatibility with the existing system. That's not the type of project that Federal empire builders and big contractors want.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
  11. Really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    What does that mean for Internet users' privacy?


    I think it is a very useful software and should be distributed publically. I mean if FBI can go through all my spam and junk and filter the non-sense, I will assume my tax dollars are working. And ofcourse these FBI will get something better to do than chasing UFOs. I am all for it. Come on FBI, please go through my emails before I come for work and sort the SPAM too.
    .

    1. Re:Really by Fyre2012 · · Score: 1

      there is a dumbed down version freely available that is pretty powerfull
      it can be found here
      Not sure just how different this one is from the one the fed's have, but it's still an interesting piece of software

      --
      This is not the greatest .sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
  12. At least before .... by with_him · · Score: 1, Funny

    I knew who my enemy was so to speak. Now we are fighting an unknown evil. Do you really think that FBI and NSA and giving up on snooping in the digitial age?

    The thought that someone might be able to link me back the county singer websites I visit a work is scary. I need my anomity!

    1. Re:At least before .... by laupsavid · · Score: 1

      What I thought...it's like during the Cold War, the US gummint would announce they were no longer going to use a certain model of spyplane, and try to make it sound like they were no longer spying. But it really meant that spyplane was obsolete and had been replaced with something better.

    2. Re:At least before .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually they keep right on flying the obsolete spyplanes (U2's flying out of Howard Air Force Base during the 90s for instance). They just take repair and maintenance of the craft off the official budgets and move those expenditures to the untraceable budget (the money pit...).

  13. It Means... by dolo666 · · Score: 1

    ... oh, maybe I shouldn't say exactly what it means. :/

  14. Internet users' privacy? by jbrandv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    HaHaHaHa!

  15. goodbye Carnivore... by figurewmeat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...hello new echelon iteration?

    They didn't just give up a method of infiltration - that's just foolish.

    no news here. move along. nothing has changed.

    1. Re:goodbye Carnivore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Echelon isn't the FBI. It's the NSA, as well as the Canadian, British, Australian, and New Zealand... well I don't know the proper term for a group from New Zealand, so I'll call them "Kiwis" as they've been known to go by...

      The toys they have make the FBI's toybox look quit harmless and laughable in comparison.

  16. Atkins is meat. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FBI has announced that their universally criticized Carnivore system has been retired. Who wants to bet that it's just been renamed, and expanded with those "commercial" search tools? You are, since you're reading this. And if you're American, you're paying for the casino! Don't you feel safer, with the government lying to you for your own good, to protect you from the terror of $500M FBI projects that don't work?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Atkins is meat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software formerly known as Carnivore can now be purchased from Halliburton's IT division. Sure, it costs more now, but isn't your safety and Cheney's salary more important?

      AnonCow (f'ing bet your life!)

      Jeb in 08!!

      8-)

  17. It Means by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It means that it's time to start encrypting your email. 4096 bit public key encryption should suffice. I can't believe this isn't more prevalent in today's world. We need WDIV Chopper News 4 to do an expose on how everyone is spying on your email. Maybe that would get the public's attention. What I'm surprised about is that AFAIK, none of the webmail providers support encrypting email. You could probably get the browser to encrypt it using Javascript or even with a Java applet. Anyway, having the option would be nice.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:It Means by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 1

      What about just integration with GPG and PGP?

      --
      thisnukes4u.net
    2. Re:It Means by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That would be nice. but that would mean that they needed to have your private key. and that you would post it to their site in plaintext. It would be much better if it was encypted before it travelled over any network.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:It Means by tabdelgawad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a tradeoff with encryption. On the one hand, you make your email harder (impossible? do we really know?) to read for unauthorized third parties. On the other hand, given the percentage of people who use encryption, your emails will stick out like a sore thumb to the FBI/NSA/whoever as something worth investigating.

      I know this is not fair; I don't have to be doing something criminal in order to want privacy. But I really wouldn't be surprised if encrypting your email nowadays raises a red flag in whatever carnivore-replacement program they're running.

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    4. Re:It Means by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      So ... the trick is to use some form of plain-text encryption that doesn't appear to be anything but a somewhat long-winded normal message discussing the weather or the latest playoffs. There was something along those lines mentioned on Slashdot some time ago. I'm surprised that encryption hasn't been completely outlawed for private use, on some kind of antiterrorism grounds. Obviously, if Congress tries to tell banks and major corporations that they can't encrypt their data there will be a revolution in Washington, but Average Joe and his family are logical targets for such a law.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:It Means by EodLabs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hushmail does, and it was free last time I checked. The pay service has alot more features, but for a hotmail/gmail/etc.. substitue it's note bad.

    6. Re:It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      If the FBI wants to see the specs on my new box (Mmmmmmm, Opteron goodness!) or find out that one of my exes is harassing me, more power to them. (If they want to go make some popcorn for the latter, it should be an entertaining show!)

      Oh, I'm all for paranoid nuts encrypting whatever they want, but how can you not understand how it isn't more prevalent?

      People don't give a damn. The average person doesn't care who knows what's going on with them, indeed, for the average person, all you need to do is buy them a cup of coffee and they'll be thrilled to give you all sorts of boring details about their life.

      Not to mention that if you use encryption, the terrorists win! :p

    7. Re:It Means by m50d · · Score: 1

      I don't mind that, as I'm not emailing anything that really matters. But I still don't want it read. And if I attract attention from TLAs, I'm just distracting them from others. Which is good.

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:It Means by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      We need WDIV Chopper News 4 to do an expose

      Maybe Edison Carter and Network 23?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    9. Re:It Means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A legitimate use for encrypted e-mail is between companies and their banks. Several companies that I have worked for have sent data extracts daily between the company and their banks or various clearing houses via PGP.

      What it will ultimately be is that non-company people sending e-mail between people via PGP or otherwise encrypted will indeed set a red flag, and if someone in the govment has an itch to scratch about something, this will be one of the red flags that they investigate first. Of course, the system (courts, laws, etc.) will be changed so that even in early phases there will be a supposition of guilt or other evil intent that will need to be disproven by the person under investigation. With the PATRIOT USA act, this will be even more difficult for someone to do, because most of the background evidence will be deemed too secret for even the defendent/person of interest to see.

      The infrastructure for a modern, American version of the Inquisition has indeed been set up. We already know that for the "penalty phase" that the current Administration would like nothing more than to be able to hold people with no time line (i.e., no habeus corpus could be applied), in Gitmo or who knows where else.

      We just await to see it fully implemented and put into action.

      The sick irony. For all the anti-communist rhetoric that motivated the Republican party in the US for 50 years, especially about the evil systems such as Lubienko, kangaroo courts, the gulags, etc., that in the Land of the Free, a similar system is being set up, all in the name of "fighting terrorism", by the same people supposedly against such un-American systems.

    10. Re:It Means by QMO · · Score: 0

      I thought that nobody remembered Max Headroom anymore.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  18. why call it carnivore? by budcub · · Score: 4, Funny

    You'd think they'd name it something like "Perfectly harmless investigating program that would never ever violate your privacy"

    Calling it Carnivore was asking for an uproar.

    1. Re:why call it carnivore? by photonrider · · Score: 1

      Because they're geeks, federal spy geeks but geeks none the less and "carnivore" is way cooler than "fluffy bunny".

    2. Re:why call it carnivore? by Everleet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Privacy never even crossed their minds.

      --
      It's tragic. Laugh.
    3. Re:why call it carnivore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're probably replacing it with Fluffy Bunny Instant Search-Bar Software. Who'd be afraid of FBI'S-BS?

    4. Re:why call it carnivore? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Fluffy Bunny" is a cool name... don't underestimate the fluffy bunnies!

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:why call it carnivore? by Dimble+ThriceFoon · · Score: 1

      terrible bit of brand awareness on the FBI's part!

    6. Re:why call it carnivore? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Maybe Cudley bunny would be better?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    7. Re:why call it carnivore? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Joking aside, it is an old enough program that it was named before the Republican PR machine took power and began naming things euphemistically (i.e. USA Patriot Act, Clear Skies Inititiative, No Child Left Behind, Tort Reform, etc.) After all, who isn't a patrot, who wants to see children left behind, who wants dirty skies, and who doesn;t want to stick it to lawyers? Of course that isn't what any of these programs actually do, but that's the point.

      In reality these programs should be named the US Internal Security and Surveillance Act, New Source Review Cancellation Act, Federal Nationalized Educational Testing and Funding Act, and Protect the Corporations Act.

  19. they hired a research firm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    in this article one of the things they note is "a rapid turnover among the bureau's information technology personnel." in addition to which they appear to have as many problems as any other large organization trying to manage their tech infrastructure.

  20. Conspiracy theory! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Hmmmm. MS gets into the anti-spyware business, and the FBI suddenly decides it doesn't need its custom spyware anymore...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Conspiracy theory! by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      You forgot to include a few steps.

      (1) Microsoft dominates market with OS & IE
      that has more holes than swiss cheese
      (2) FBI deploys "Carnivore" to monitor email
      (3) FBI blows 1/2 billion dollars on virtual
      data access
      (4) Poindexter (of TIA fame) moves to new
      project & TIA gets "scrapped" (MATRIX?)
      (5) Google releases Desktop Search tools
      (6) Microsoft enters "anti-spyware" business
      (7) ???
      (8) profit (???)

      Sorry, but beyond Bush administration cutting
      Microsoft loose from the DoJ anti-monopoly
      lawsuit, the rewards for Microsoft have been
      enormous. Consider that the reorganization
      of large segments of the government under the
      aspices of the Dept. of Homeland Security also
      included the adoption by said organization of
      the least secure OS/Apps available - Microsoft's.
      (Doesn't this qualify DHS as an oxymoron?)
      Either the "Peter Principle" has been fully
      vetted and promoted from theory to law, or there
      is a larger (as yet unseen) conspiracy theory
      to be explored.

      (Personally, I am switching from a tin-foil hat
      to a fully grounded 3 mil copper hat as soon as
      I can address the issue of unobtrusively dragging
      a small brass chain behind me.)

    2. Re:Conspiracy theory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop
      fucking
      posting
      in
      fucking
      narrow-
      colu mn
      format,
      you
      dick.

      It's
      very,
      very,
      very,
      annoying.

  21. Netcraft confirms: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carnivore bites the big one!

  22. Re:Selective editing from SecurityFocus? by java.bean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, the "Crap Web Pages" filter on Google isn't working that well yet, it's still in beta: http://crapfilter.google.com/ .

  23. What about the budget by digitalgimpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They budgeted quite a bit of hard cash to develop Carnivore...

    so who is going to be held responsible for that wasted cash due to bad planning?

    IMHO that's a ton of money that can be used for many useful things... it was taken from our taxes... and now just sits on some cvs server (assuming they save it).

    That cash could have been used to pay for some armor for troops deployed in Iraq. Or perhaps fund development of improved airline security equipment... something that would be beneficial.

    Why the hell did this get approved if commercial equivilants were in the works? What seriously ill planning went into that?

    If the FBI were a company... heads would roll. This wouldn't be acceptable.

    BTW: This page has a small image of the carnivore logo (for anyone interested).

    1. Re:What about the budget by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      In other news, the money could have also stayed in the pockets of citizens, where it belongs. Not forcibly taken by the government via taxes in the first place.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:What about the budget by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone is perhaps unaware of how the economy *actually* works.

      The FBI paid to develop carnivore - and then the developers took side jobs developing these commercial equivalents, which they sold to the FBI. These commercial equivalents would never have come into existence if the Feds hadn't taken on the cost of the initial phase of development, and, from the look of things, provided an initial customer base for this software. The exact same thing happened with total information awareness (now a product being sold out of a cayman islands holding corporation or the like), in case you were not paying attention.

      You may not like this sort of arrangement, but in that case you must really hate all the money the Feds wasted on information technology, automation, container shipping, or avionics, all of which were developed more-or-less the same way.

      Of course, you can approve of this sort of arrangement without approving of it's use in this particular case, but that isn't the objection you raise.

      If the FBI were a company... heads would roll. This wouldn't be acceptable.

      How adorable! A Capitalist! Does woo believe in the free market? Does woo? Yes woo does!

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    3. Re:What about the budget by g0hare · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it the way it works here, go to a country where you are taxed less and have better security, better living conditions, better opportunity to make money, have better health care and better roads and better police and better armies.

      Oh wait there's no such place? Then shut up and pay your taxes.

      --
      Vote Quimby!
    4. Re:What about the budget by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I could move to Great Britain or Canada and have all of that, so why don't you STFU? The government we have now is NOT what our government should be. The government should not provide healthcare, it should not provide retirement benefits (from a system that has lived passed its usefulness), it should not be providing anything much past a military and organization to deal with foreign governments in matters of trade and peace (between us and everyone else, if at all possible).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    5. Re:What about the budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you don't like it the way it works here..."

      You are an ignorant jerk. But then, you have plenty of company in the US.

      And I live in the US, so I know whereof I speak.

      Bunch of SUV-driving, McDonald's-inhaling scum ...

    6. Re:What about the budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If you don't like it the way it works here..."

      lay the groundwork for a violent overthrow of the government.

      Yes, it will probably fail, but the chance to hold a gun to your head and say "if you don't like it, leave" is just too inviting.

    7. Re:What about the budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends. If part of the plan was to set up a shell company to eat the costs of the development, close the company when the stuff has been proven (thus isolating the damage somewhere else in the financial reports), then license the IP to people who can actually make the equipment for far less, and then buy the new stuff on the cheap, someone could end up with a big bonus in their portfolio...

      NASA has done stuff like this for quite some time, and most DARPA projects, much of the various work by the various Applied Physics laboratories at many universities, etc.

      And how much money are we talking about, really? It seems like a lot compared to your annual salary, but it's not even pocket change for the US Government. Sort of like Randy Moss being unimpressed with a $10K fine (heck, that's 3-4 months of takehome pay for me!).

      Besides, do you really know how budgets work in companies and the government? You are without a clue as far as this goes.

    8. Re:What about the budget by QMO · · Score: 0

      Re-check taxes again.
      Your number line would have to be in the wrong order if you think that the US has higher taxes than either of those two countries.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  24. The cat is out of the bag. by agent · · Score: 1

    The cat is out of the bag, and the dogs are running free.
    V2.0 ?
    http://static.stileproject.com/rnd/th2/eye02.jp g
    Thank you eff.org
    Peace

  25. We have never been at war with Eurasia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

    1. Re:We have never been at war with Eurasia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, no. You're got it all mixed up.

      Carnivore merely reads your email (and web pages).

      The project that goes through your hard disk and updates all your existing files to reflect the policy that was always in force (DON'T call it "changed") is code named "Winston".

    2. Re:We have never been at war with Eurasia. by Bloodlent · · Score: 1

      Sort of interesting and true-Before we were all like, oh man, get Iraq(In Eurasia), now we're all like, get North Korea(In Eastasia).

  26. Carnivore has offshoots by itpr15061 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Carnivore relied heavily on a product called SilentRunner. SilentRunner was purchased by Computer Associates and given a new name, Network Forensics.

    http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=4856

    It has the ability to decode email on the fly. I have the product and while it does have some "wow" factor, the usability and stability is atrocious. Another fine cobbled together product from CA.

    1. Re:Carnivore has offshoots by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      It can decode ASCII plaintext in real-time? Wow, now that is impressive.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Carnivore has offshoots by itpr15061 · · Score: 1

      Hehe, it will decode all attachments as well. No big deal in itself considering every mailer can do this but it does make it incredibly easy to snoop on folks.

      No skill whatsoever is required to view the messages and attachments.

    3. Re:Carnivore has offshoots by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Imagine the poors sods at the FBI who have to wade all through the spam! :)

      Actually, there's a thought on how to avoid FBI monitoring - just disguise your message as spam. ;)

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    4. Re:Carnivore has offshoots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i can do the same thing in mIRC script it really has no wow factor.

  27. Well, that's an easy one by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    What does that mean for Internet users' privacy?

    Same as it always does ... there will be less. Privacy, that is.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  28. What does this mean?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means that the FBI is doing the same thing, except cheaper by buying off-the-shelf systems. Basically the same as what the military is doing.

    I don't see this as very surprising, honestly, since it seems to be a trend throughout the government. I'm sure their policies on data retention and use are pretty much the same, just using FooSoft E-Mail Spy Gold Edition instead of their own proprietary software. Not particularly good or bad, just different.

  29. Ok, but now will they by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Open Source it or give it abandonware status?
    That would be fun!

  30. nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still i have my tinfoil hat on.

    shhh someones listening

  31. who trust in FBI ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think that FBI does not retire nothing !!! the carnivore will continue on and on and on.....
    i dont trust in FBI , CIA, USA,.......

  32. hello.... McFly.... by glassesmonkey · · Score: 1

    FBI agents lugged it with them to ISPs that lacked their own spying capability.

    Are people going to realize that everyone (good & bad & corporate) are spying on you? Or at the very least, they are logging everything you do.

    Why doesn't MPAA & RIAA just get it over with and buy the rest of the ISPs?

  33. source by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 1

    If it is retired and non-commercial then they should release the source upon request, right? Right?

    1. Re:source by dargon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a prime use of the Freedom of Information Act. Please let me see the source code to Carnivore

  34. open source carnivore by dlkj83jdk3883ll · · Score: 2, Informative

    yes, Carnivore was opensourced in 2001 by a group calling themselves RSG. it was covered on slashdot. of course tcpdump is still better if all you want is to packet sniff, but this other version is good for realtime data visualization.

  35. not needed by glsunder · · Score: 1

    With GWB in office again, it's no longer needed.

    1. Re:not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats true, GWB will use his brilliant "strategery" and claim the internet is a weapon of mass destruction, and bomb the fuck out of AOL /snicker

  36. What does that mean for Internet users' privacy? by ticbot · · Score: 0

    business as usual, just don't do anything stupid or illegal.

  37. Er by t_allardyce · · Score: 0, Redundant

    unspecified commercial surveillance tools are employed now Gator software??

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  38. It could be this company's product... by Vakara · · Score: 1

    http://www.cloudshield.com/

    The box does operations on packet streams based on programmed rules. With the packet inspection capabilities it can do things like copy email packets to/from particular users and have them archived... From a 5Gps data stream.

    I actually used to joke with a friend who worked there, saying they were building the next generation carnivore.

  39. steganography by whovian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So ... the trick is to use some form of plain-text encryption that doesn't appear to be anything but a somewhat long-winded normal message discussing the weather or the latest playoffs.

    Something like text based steganography (demo 1, demo 2)? Slashdot has covered steganography before.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  40. So thats who... by excaliber19 · · Score: 1
    Justin Frankel is working for now! Check out his "assniffer". It recreates files from HTTP streams ;)

    http://www.cockos.com/assniffer/

  41. E-Mail Isn't Secure by Ensign+Regis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    E-Mail is just as secure as a postcard. Don't send secret information via either one.

  42. Patriot Act vs. Carnivore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carnivore was FBI's answer to the capabliities that NSA has. The major part of patriot act I, is that it allowed the FBI access to the NSA's capabilities. There is no more need for carnivore, since NSA goes much much further.

  43. Clearsight Network Analyser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Ever heard of Clearsight or AppDancer? Same product, they just changed their name. It's technically a network analyzer, but you can also "see" all sorts of network traffic.

    You can watch an FTP session while it happens, telnet as well. You can listen in on SIP conversations, watch web pages be downloaded (not in a web browser but you can see what files they are and then click to see).

    If it can do that, then you should not be surprised that it can also read e-mails, and the viewer mimics a standard e-mail client (so even the dumbest can understand what's going on).

    Sure it'll do packed dumps like ethereal, et al. But if you take the packet dumps from another program and load them up in it, it'll reconstruct the network traffic and show you what went on.

    Needless to say the first time I saw the program in action I about crapped my pants.

    At roughly $5,000 dollars it's practically free to the government, runs on java, and any decent machine with a network card can run it. Any yes, it also works with wireless cards that can be put into promiscuous mode.

    1. Re:Clearsight Network Analyser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone have a torrent?

  44. What it means by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Is that they're using software that they have procured without any oversight by congress. Remember they had to pay millions for carnivore and it came under congressional oversight. Today they're probably paying less than a million and that's pocketchange in the DOHS budget.

    If you're still concerned then write your congressmen that you dont believe the retirement of carnivore does not mean that they quit but are now more than likely using commercial software that is flying under the radar of congress.

  45. Stealth Carnivore by TimeOut42 · · Score: 1

    If the FBI is willing to dump Carnivore, then that means they don't need it anymore and there must be another method they are using.

  46. retired carnivore? by true_majik · · Score: 1

    or so they want you to believe!

  47. Why Hide? by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure the techies at FBI headquarters get lonely sorting through all the false positives these programs churn up. Instead of encrypting our email, I say include a friendly message for them. Hey, they're geeks too. (probably read slashdot)

    First, make sure you include one or more key words, (pr3sid3nt, b0mb, j1h4d) then include a hello to the kind folks who snoop your correspondence for you.

  48. Hah by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

    Carnivore is not spyware in the accepted meaning of the word. It's installed in the ISP's computers and not in the users' desktops.

    1. Re:Hah by roseblood · · Score: 1

      Spy ware is software that watches, records(optional) and reports its findings to a third party.

      Some spyware is good (anti-virus, watches for virus, nukes it, records a log, and sends some info to the software guys for their statistics.)

      Some spyware is bad (gator, weather bug, whatever.)

      Some is questionable ... like the subject of the article (watches i-net traffic with specific key words, loggs hits, and sends the results off to...someone... at the FBI.)

      If the system being spied on is a users desktop, their PDA, the office server, or some machine handling a large backbone, it's all spyware (again, for good or bad.)

      --
      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    2. Re:Hah by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Is anyone working yet on an encrypted P2P email protocol that bypasses the ISP's servers? (SMTP doesn't count :))

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  49. strange... by LuckyJ · · Score: 1

    ...how the very same community that creates tools for data capture and processing is scared about what someone else could do with it. At least they (the Feds) have to get a court order. What does Hacker Joe need? Nothing!

  50. YES! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    DOWN WITH AMERI... I hear a knock at the door...

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  51. Carnivore obsoleted by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    O/S vulnerabilties are dime-a-dozen (more like dime-a-million). At the risk of flame-fest and my excellent karma, this means SE-Linux and BSD too!

    All FBI has to do is contract out a couple of spywares, adwares and L0pht-like Heavy Industries.

    No further need for Carnivore.

  52. Since when was there privacy on the internet? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Maybe back in the days of ARPAnet when it was military only, but people somehow think that the internet, with its *free-flow* of information, should be private. How can there be a free-flow of information and privacy? This has been stated before: with the internet it's not whether or not you have privacy, but to what degree. Another question: Is there a "right" to privacy on the internet? If so by whom was this granted? By just using something that provides "free-flow" of information and ideas, do we give up privacy inexchange to access to those ideas and information about others? Can someone else write an unauthorized biography about you and post it for all to see as if you were a celebrity or historical figure? If they can't doesn't it effect the "free-flow" of ideas and information that so many taughted about the Internet?

    For those who think that email encryption is the answer in this or that key, just remember...it wouldn't be "public" if folks at intel agencis couldn't already break it.

    For those who don't like the idea of Big Brother, it's already here. Employers can now readily and fairly cheaply get your credit report before they even decide whether to interview you. Same goes for other background checks. It's not like this information was not available before, it's just much easier to gain access to it these days. And its going to get worse, not better.

    On another level, there has long been the arguement that the Internet was beyond borders and therefore cannot nor should not have any government interferance. The net should police itself, etc. and so on and so forth. Free-for-all melees never end well for anyone. Yesterday there was an article about people giving up on the Internet because of all the spyware, spam, etc.. If I weren't looking for a different job, chances are I wouldn't even check my email on a regular basis unless someone IMed me or called me and told me they were sending something my way. I have relatively good anti-spam protection and still 90% of the stuff I get is crap. But I degress.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:Since when was there privacy on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But I degress.

      Where is the "-1, Repulsive spelling and grammar" mod when you need it?

      </wordnazi>
  53. Maybe? by selil · · Score: 1

    So does this mean I might get funding for a F/OSS net scraper?

    --
    --- Location Unknown
  54. It means... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

    the same thing that wiretap laws/capability have meant for the privacy of phone users for the last however many decades.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  55. Tin Hat by IcarusMoth · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I can fold up my tin hat and go outside again?
    --
    did not RTFA; because B) I assume its already been slashdotted, and B) because that is how *they* track you.

  56. Fuggedaboudit by handy_vandal · · Score: 3, Funny
    What does that mean for Internet users' privacy?

    Privacy? What privacy?

    Do you want criminals running your life?
    Of course not!

    But the world is full of criminals who want to run your life.
    What you need is police, to protect you from criminals.
    Magic Lantern + Organized Crime

    Scarfo + keystroke logging
    Then there's the problem of police protecting themselves from criminals -- or not, as the case may be -- but that's another story.

    -kgj
    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Fuggedaboudit by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      But the world is full of criminals who want to run your life.

      Sadly, most of them are people we elected.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    2. Re:Fuggedaboudit by Taladar · · Score: 1

      In the same way that you killed yourself when someone says "We can either drown you, stab you, shoot you or hang you. Which one do you want?" (only in politics you have even fewer options).

    3. Re:Fuggedaboudit by pacificleo · · Score: 1

      all this discussion about privacy and ppl reading your mail and other crap is of no good .i don't want to maintain my privacy at the coast of my nation's security .i will happily allow any government body to snoop in to my email if that can help them prevent another 9/11 . and i think everybody should do the same.

      --
      somethings are best left unsaid , I am one of those things
  57. try china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    i hear the goverment over there have lots of experience in "monitoring" its "public" networks

    perhaps they may have some ideas for your FBI

    1. Re:try china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > i hear the goverment over there have lots of experience in "monitoring" its "public" networks
      >
      >perhaps they may have some ideas for your FBI

      Where the fuck do you think we're running the live beta and the scalability tests? Soviet Russia? :)

    2. Re:try china by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny
      > i hear the goverment over there have lots of experience in "monitoring" its "public" networks
      >
      > perhaps they may have some ideas for your FBI

      Where the fuck do you think we're running the live beta and the scalability tests? Soviet Russia? :)

      I'm only half in jest. Soviet Russia was the alpha test for both the surveillance system and the sociopolitical system. It failed - two coups, and economic collapse.

      China was the beta. It succeeded. One attempted coup - crushed instantly, because the Chinese learned how to deal with dissidents. Political stability is rock-solid, and economic growth is stellar.

      The full system goes live, planet-wide, within 10 years. You're free to choose whether or not to buy in now, but it's a limited time offer.

      I bought in because steak tastes better than dog food, a plasma-screen TV made by slave labor beats making plasma-screen TVs for $0.01/h, and because winning is just plain more fun than losing.

      I kinda like your slogan. "Try China". I did. And I liked it.

    3. Re:try china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 if I had it.

      ObContent: When we're all working for WalMart we won't be able to afford steak either.

    4. Re:try china by John+Poindexter · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you are getting your news but there is an incredible amount of discord in China. Though currently its mainly linked with the Party's policy of internal colonialism as a means to exploit natural resources and develop transportation and electrification infrastrcuture. Peasants are being displaced in numbers not unlike Mao's programs and almost daily demonstrations, some quite large, are being held.

  58. You mean we had privacy by adeydas · · Score: 1

    You mean like we had privacy previously. First its the secret service like FBI that scans our mails, then its the mail server for finding spam or providing ads (Gmail anyone) and finally its our own ISP. Where does the question of privacy come in?!

  59. P2P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have bought some P2P software companies instead. Imagine the possibilities.

    1. Re:P2P by chipster · · Score: 1
      Heh - that's funny as hell :)

      Sad thing is, you are absolutely right!

      (moderators, hello?)

  60. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to Omnivore, the open source Carnivore that was superior in every way?

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:zerg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a big political infight, the program got forked three different ways, and now Omnivore only eats gnomes.

    2. Re:zerg by m1066ad · · Score: 1

      That's where my Gnome went...

  61. and by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

    and we would believe them why????

  62. FBI tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google on "CALEA". A number of companies sell this stuff to various carriers, and it's not just for digital voice intercept anymore. I know -- I work for a manufacturer of the stuff. It really is pure evil.

  63. commercial surveillance - NIKSUN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NIKSUN is a prime example of one of the unspecified commercial apps that are being used for this kind of thing. think of it as TCPdump on crack.

  64. It has been renamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The product is now Omnivore. Gobble gobble.

  65. Clarification please by with_him · · Score: 1, Funny

    was I modded down for stupidity, mentioning country music or both?

    1. Re:Clarification please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably your atrocious spelling.

  66. Re:irritance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Canivore was getting old anyway, it's time for a change.

    So, you're saying it was getting a bit "long in the tooth?"

  67. Internet Privacy? You Jest by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    There is no privacy from the government..

    THey have more resources then you can imagine, and they make the rules...

    You might be able to keep things private from your neighbors, and small companies ( that arent your ISP ).. but that is about as far as it goes.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  68. Contrarian to the Party by Dennis+Bailey · · Score: 1

    I hate to break up this wonderful group hug of comments about the threat of government programs like Carnivore and the loss of privacy on the Internet, but I have to remind everyone that if you think you are important enough that the government has chosen to read your email from the billions that are sent across the world each day, then you are delusional. Also, everyone seems to forget that revealing information captured by Carnivore had to go through court approval first. Unfortunately the FBI's penchant for secrecy with programs like these only cause the hysteria of postings like those above to proliferate.

    --
    Dennis Bailey 612 Tivoli Passage Alexandria, VA 22314 mail@dennisbailey.com COO, Comter Systems Author of The O
  69. What you mean we? by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    But the world is full of criminals who want to run your life.
    Sadly, most of them are people we elected.


    "What you mean 'we', white man?"
    - Tonto

    --
    -kgj
  70. Ruth Marx Redux by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

    This unspecified commercial software doesn't happen to have an innocuous looking "pi" symbol in the lower corner, does it?

    --
    "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
  71. $170,000,000 abandoned? by raam · · Score: 1


    I think they just used it to write a dialing program in case we wever find a stargate.

  72. What does that mean for Internet users' privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means that the monitoring activities are now being doune outside of the federal government sphere - and hence are not subject to any oversight or limited by any privacy legislation.

  73. it means the same as it ever did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Carnivore has been retired, then it can only be for one reason: software developed by and for spammers/identity thieves/phishers etc to gather email etc either outperforms their own, or matches performance at a lower cost.

    For the /. people, the lesson is the same as ever - encrypt, encrypt, encrypt. No matter what they are running, breaking a 2048-bit encryption key is far from trivial.

  74. Ha! by detlev409 · · Score: 1

    And someone told me I was full of it the other day when I said Carnivore was still around.

    --
    Howdy.
  75. Can I have some more please? by FrankieBoy · · Score: 1

    OK, all those who believe that the FBI conducted only 13 Internet surveillances during the 2 year period please turn in your Junior GI badges. What ever hapened to all those surveillance systems in New Zealand that used to be called Echelon? Have they been retired? Google up "echelon surveillance" for some interesting reading if your interested to see what's being watched on the Internet (or your phones for that matter). Now maybe Echelon is being run by the NSA or the CIA but bottom line, it's got a lot more teeth than Carnivore. Actually I'm OK with the surveillance, if it's used properly...but there's the rub.

  76. Police Investigative Security Software by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    would be a much better name...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  77. Oh, great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, it is believed that unspecified commercial surveillance tools are employed now. What does that mean for Internet users' privacy?

    So, in other words, with Carnivore, the FBI had access to everyone's email, and now both the FBI and some private corporation have access to everyone's email? Big improvement guys! Go to the top of the class!

  78. It *is* In the wrong hands by Tony · · Score: 1

    ...it can be a dangerous tool for privacy in the wrong hands...

    Which hands would be the *right* hands?

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  79. A simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is simple - everybody, their uncle and their dog starts planting keywords (you can surely figure these out yourself) all over their .sig files.... overloading the spy.vs.spy ware. What thinks the slashdotters of this?

  80. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The devils snake changes its skin, but it is still a devils snake. 666 lives!

  81. There is no "Internet Privacy" and there never was by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Forget the FBI. Everything you send that is unencrypted can be read by every tom, dick, and harry that manages the ISP or routers used to send your message, or even has access to loggin databases.

    When you send an email or post in a forum somewhere, you might as well just assume that you scrawled it across your naked body in permanent marker and went streaking through the streets of your local city, passing through a CNN shoot.

    That's how "private" you email is, long before the FBI enters the picture. So why should I care if they are lookign at my email - after all, everyone else is!

    Encrypt your email if you have something to say you do not want everyone to know. But honestly how many of us really have anything that interesting to say? That's why I, as of yet, do not encrypt any of my own emails.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  82. Sniffing Rocks! by Fabio9000 · · Score: 1

    God, you filthy commies...what's wrong with the government having the power to look into suspect communications? Sure, if you're some potsmoking patchouli-wearing snotnosed college brat downloading the latest copy of Gigli, this will suck for you. If you're a law-abiding, straightup person with nothing to hide, then it's all good.

    1. Re:Sniffing Rocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA Wow that was probably as awesome as Gigli 2: JUDGEMENT DAY will be.

  83. Of course!... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything the FBI tells you is true.

  84. Re:What country do you live in? by symbolic · · Score: 1


    Don't you understand how it works yet? As long as a congressthing brings home enough cash from Washington to satisfy the monied interests, he/she will continue to have a nice warchest come time for re-election. Since American voters are either to entrenched in the entitlements they receive, or they are just too stupid to understand what's going on, these people keep getting re-elected. It's a systemic problem- a cancer of sorts, and it will take something fairly significant to clean it up.

  85. Re:People keep forgetting... by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful


    There's a big difference between John Q. Hacker, and perhaps some waywardly curious employee somewhere spying on what I do, and the government doing the same thing. Because the government makes and enforces the rules, it is held to a higher standard. That standard is elaborated in the 4th Amendment- there has to be a REASON for the the government to be looking at anyone's mail, and that reason must suggest that they have either broken the law, or there is good reason to believe that they are about to break the law. If neither exists, they have business looking at it, even if it's not "private".