Precedent for Warrantless Net Monitoring Set

highcon writes "According to this editorial from SecurityFocus, a recent case of a drug dog which pushed the limits of "reasonable search" may have implications for Internet communications in the U.S. This Supreme Court case establishes a precendent whereby "intelligent" packet filters may be deployed which, while scanning the contents of network traffic indiscriminently, only "bark" at communication indicative of illegal activity."

Comments

What ever happened to the Constitution?

[raistphrk]

So law enforcement can just sit with a packet filter scanning for the word "drugs"? That's just absurd. If law enforcement has reason to believe that an individual is committing illegal acts, they can go and get a warrant. Thanks to FISA, that's not the most difficult task. However, this isn't like a drug deal on a street corner; this is more analagous to being able to tap everybody's cell phone, hoping to find one or two people selling drugs.

A real blow to the Constitution.

Encryption Time

[Warskull]

When you can no longer rely on the law to protect your privacy the time comes to take things into your own hands. Should this get applied to the internet I see a rather good reason to push for the encryption of all transmitted data.

Re:Thy don't understand tech, they use metaphors

[Lucky_Norseman]

I assume that using encryption is one of the things that will trigger a packet as suspicious.

Re:Thy don't understand tech, they use metaphors

[X0563511]

Anything that the sniffer can't parse would trigger that then.

If you can't parse something, from the code's view, it can either be encrypted or innocent data. How exactly would it be able to tell the difference? It can't. It's either something it understands or something encrypted.

If the thing was coded to ignore things it couldn't parse, then what happens if you simply make up your own algorithm (just use ROT13 or something) on top of the PGP/RSA/whatever? It would be nearly pointless.