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?"

17 of 194 comments (clear)

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

    Just more stuff hidden from view.

  2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
    .

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

    HaHaHaHa!

  7. 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.

  8. 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

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

    Privacy never even crossed their minds.

    --
    It's tragic. Laugh.
  10. We have never been at war with Eurasia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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".