Slashdot Mirror


The Ultimate Net Monitoring Tool?

Wired News is reporting that the equipment found in the "secret" NSA room at AT&T wasn't some elaborate device designed by Big Brother. Rather, it is a commercially available network-analysis product that any company could acquire. From the article: "'Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record,' says Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, a Mountain View, California, company. 'We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their VOIP calls.'"

293 comments

  1. Error Page by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 3, Funny

    The error page of "Nothing to see here. Move Along." that showed up when first clicking on the comments link was hilarious.

    1. Re:Error Page by takeya · · Score: 1, Funny

      Agreed...

      I'm really sick of seeing the first post being a "nothing to see here please move along" joke, then get modded up insightful/interesting...

    2. Re:Error Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just what people say when they're not fast enough to do it first.

    3. Re:Error Page by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Hmm... as I try to post this, (11:30PM EST) I get repeated messages I haven't seen before: "Database maintenance is currently taking place. Some items such as comment posting and moderation are currently unavailable." Seems an odd time for it. Then - no kidding - my computer starts playing a jaunty little MIDI tune while I have no other programs or sites open, and it does not stop when I click mute. A few seconds later, the music stops. I'm a bit weirded out. Is somebody sending me a message?

      Taking this back on topic...

      [now day-before-] Yesterday I spent about two hours looking at the Naurus website, details of the Naurus system and tracing Naurus' links with intelligence contractors and agencies as well as major tech and financial firms. I pasted the interesting bits up in my journal.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  2. Oh well, by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny
    At least it's running under Linux.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Oh well, by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Free as in Freedom Fries."

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Oh well, by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Funny
      At least it's running under Linux.

      This is one of those time you wish it were a Microsoft product...

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    3. Re:Oh well, by xineax · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, when I am being raped in political prison because of the next-generation of this thing, I'll say, "At least Hugo is taking my man-cherry as a result of Linux." *Thumbs up*

    4. Re:Oh well, by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Funny
      *Thumbs up*

      I don't think it will be thumbs that will be up.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Oh well, by xineax · · Score: 1

      Touche. ;)

    6. Re:Oh well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks sir, that one made my day. I have mod points and I wish I could mod you "6 absurdly funny"

  3. Government doesn't like to do homebrew by saskboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's not too surprising that the government would use off-the shelf solutions for electronic devices. After all, there aren't many circuit boards made in the United States still, are there? How much does Texas Instruments produce domestically for instance?

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:Government doesn't like to do homebrew by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      It's not too surprising that the government would use off-the shelf solutions for electronic devices. After all, there aren't many circuit boards made in the United States still, are there? How much does Texas Instruments produce domestically for instance?

      That and they spend hundreds of millions on less complex tools that never materialize into a real application.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    2. Re:Government doesn't like to do homebrew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Saskboy,

      You should use different pseudonyms when you post on FTA boards.

      Regards,
      ~ B3v & Charlie

    3. Re:Government doesn't like to do homebrew by saskboy · · Score: 1

      B3v and Charlie, who are you, who do you think I am, and what's an FTA board?

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  4. oh, in that case... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh. Well, since the NSA bought the software that it's using, then that makes everything okey with me... :-/

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:oh, in that case... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Insightful


      What makes it okay is that:

      THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE

      You have been told this from the moment you first entered the Internet.

      Anyone and everyone can see and record every byte you emit from your computer.

      The only detail is that the NSA, being a government entity, can not use the information as evidence in a court action against you, nor can they use any information that they gather only because they had this information.

      So I don't understand why people are outraged about the privacy issue. It's the issue of being able to prosecute those caught using this method that's the real problem. The existence of this intelligence program taints every case against anyone accused of any crime involving information transiting the internet.

  5. Spying by pdawg · · Score: 0

    I wonder how this will make people feel now that everyone is complaining about how the "government" is listening and recording phone calls and what have you. I would be curious to see what companies are using this technology and the reasons they give.

    1. Re:Spying by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I wonder how this will make people feel now that everyone is complaining about how the "government" is listening and recording phone calls and what have you

      Except that people aren't. I read in TIME magazine last night that over 50% of the people interviewed think that the NSA call database is justified in the War On Terror (TM). Most people will only care if it influences thier ability to watch American Idol, and if not, oh well.

    2. Re:Spying by usurper_ii · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

      Usurper_ii

    3. Re:Spying by TheBogie · · Score: 1, Funny
      I wonder if your text message American Idol votes are also recorded by the NSA. If so, we can finally end the Rueben/Clay conspiracy theories.*

      *I don't watch American Idol. Really!

    4. Re:Spying by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Most people will only care if it influences thier ability to watch American Idol, and if not, oh well.

      Oh, but it does affect American Idol. The votes are handled via a call-in system. The NSA now has a record of who you voted for!

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    5. Re:Spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's it then.

      Tell everyone if the NSA is monitoring their calls, their vote won't get through.

    6. Re:Spying by Jtheletter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I read in TIME magazine last night that over 50% of the people interviewed think that the NSA call database is justified in the War On Terror

      Was the article getting those numbers from Time's own poll, or the recently released telephone poll of 502 (IIRC) Americans which there are plenty of problems with? This is exactly why the saying "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" is applicable. This single - IMHO flawed - poll is being used at every media outlet to show people there isn't a problem and 'see, most Americans think this is ok so You Should Too.'

      Well that's not what democracy is about, it's not about groupthink, otherwise there would be no wheelchair access to most places, plenty of towns would probably still have public buildings segregated by race/class/religion, etc, etc. Majority - or mob - rule is something that democracy tries to prevent, just because the majority thinks one way does not mean they are right. And yet people allow themselves to be coerced by one stupid poll after another. Let's face it, anyone who is willing to answer a 50 question telephone poll is likely not terribly interested in their privacy, that fact alone should invalidate the poll as it introduces an unmeasurable - but likely significant - bias. My thought is that a more thorough, in-person poll with a larger sampling will show that in fact most Americans don't think this program is ok. But until such a less biased poll is conducted then all that will be referenced is this stupid poll that forwards the government's agenda. And if I'm proven wrong then so be it, in that case then this poll should no longer be quoted to assauge people's fears of this domestic spying program, but should be used as an alarm that this country is asleep! The populace needs to be woken up. Until 100% of the people are screaming mad at a warrantless datamining/spying program undertaken by the government against anyone and everyone regardless of guilt, then it means we have some educating to do! You wouldn't let a government agent swing by every morning and look at all the mailing addresses on letters going to/from your house, why the hell would you let them do the same to your phone records? Because you can't see it? Because "it doesn't affect me"? If nothing else the whole program is stupid because the government is looking for a needle in a haystack in these communications and thus far all their efforts are doing is adding more hay! Some of the 9-11 hijackers' calls were intercepted before 9-11, but they weren't translated in time to be of any use. Now we're expected to believe that fewer agents sifting through more data will somehow prevent another attack of the same sort? Laughable if it weren't so damn unfunny.
      [/rant]

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    7. Re:Spying by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

      True in general, but does it apply to this program?

      Former NSA analyst Ira Winkler has said in public that it's reducing security, and if you were designing a system with the goal of increasing security, you wouldn't spy on hundreds of millions of people in the hope of catching some of the hundreds of terrorists.

    8. Re:Spying by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      And if I call 2 people, and ask them "Do you approve of the government spying on you" and one hangs up, the other says No, I can say "50% of people polled were not against spying".

    9. Re:Spying by woolio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was the article getting those numbers from Time's own poll, or the recently released telephone poll of 502 (IIRC) Americans which there are plenty of problems with? This is exactly why the saying "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics" is applicable.

      Is doesn't matter if the polls are inaccurate.... What is the majority of the masses *believe* the poll? They will change their opinions if they think that idea "X" is generally supported. Remember, most of the registered voters didn't even vote!

      This is just an old marketing trick... Present the *image* that something is popular and that's what it will become (bandwagon advertising).

      So the numbers that 60% of Americans would give up every constitutional right for the war on terrorism doesn't even matter.... What really matters is that 75% of Americans, upon hearing the 60% number, **WILL** give up their rights.

      THAT's the real problem.

    10. Re:Spying by TinyManCan · · Score: 1
      And if you call one group and ask "Do you support the NSA working with telecom providers to monitor hundreds of millions of Americans?" and you as the other group "Do you support the NSA tracking call details, such as length of call and who was called, without recording any conversations?" You will get two differing answers.

      The real problem is that the American public is not closely following the story, and are getting limited and misleading information from many sources. Common really :)

    11. Re:Spying by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Tried to state that myself and then I just sort of flew off the handle, heh. Anyway, I totally agree. This poll is being touted to make everyone get in line and stop questioning the program.

      Anyone who blindly changes their mind over a poll with a slim majority difference deserves what they get. Unfortunately for the rest of us we'll be getting it too. :-/

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    12. Re:Spying by wanna_be_a_developer · · Score: 1

      "I read in TIME magazine last night that over 50% of the people interviewed think that the NSA call database is justified in the War On Terror "

      I am not buying that. I do not believe that 50% of an average cross-section of Americans would be ok with domestic spying. How can this be when only 29% approve of Dubya? Someone is lying.

      I admit, in the past I WAS paranoid. However, since I now have proof the NSA is spying on me, I am just plain right. The rest of ya'll who do not believe in the conspiracy, you are now paranoid. :)

      --
      Fo Shizzle!
    13. Re:Spying by LilGuy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It is always true in any case. With each inch we give up they'll take a mile. Haven't you noticed the trend? It's just one thing after another. Quite frankly I'm not afraid of any terrorists but our own government. What with all the scandals, lies, propaganda, secrets, renditions, concentration camps, wiretapping, crowd control devices... who the hell else can match that? A friggen terrorist is nothing in comparison.

      As a side note, I don't believe the 'terrorism' was real. At least it wasn't real in the sense that anyone in power on 9/11 at least knew it was coming and directly enabled it to happen.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    14. Re:Spying by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't let a government agent swing by every morning and look at all the mailing addresses on letters going to/from your house, why the hell would you let them do the same to your phone records?

      How about some other examples:

      * You're interviewed once a week to see who you've talked to. (polygraph not optional...)
      * All of your trash is tagged and sent in for inspection.
      * Cameras and microphones are installed outside your front door to record your activity.

      These would be considered unacceptable. (Except for the last one in the UK, apparently.)

      But consider where things are going. In about a decade it will probably be possible to process all phone audio in real time. In about 20 years active brain scan technology should make foolproof real time lie detection possible. (It's almost there now, just not real time.) In 50 years it should be easy to robotically sift through everyone's trash, recognize, categorize, and catalog the contents.

      The question is whether we'll want to do these things, not whether we'll be able. How we react now will affect the decisions of future generations...

    15. Re:Spying by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The rest of ya'll who do not believe in the conspiracy, you are now paranoid. :)

      No, they're not paranoid because it's not paranoia when they really ARE out to get you. What they are is complacent, and excessive complacency usually comes back to bite one in the ass.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is doesn't matter if the polls are inaccurate....

      The problem with polls is people's answers depend on the question. I was polled once regarding the MS anti-trust lawsuit, the question was "Do you think the government should be imposing regulations that could lead to lost American jobs" or some such. And when I said no to that, they would use my answer to say I'm on Microsofts side. So:

      Do you think the government should use every tool at its disposal to track down terrorsist?

      People say Yes! of Course

      Do you think the government should allow a secretive government agency used to intercepting foriegn communications against those nations will in a lawless international environment to compile a database of ever phone call made within the US with no known checks and balances in place regarding the use of that data?

      People say No way in H***!

      This of course is only the tip of the Iceberg in ways to influence the outcome of a poll. And the polling companies know them all.

  6. Oh, I see. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes perfect sense. Because anyone can do it to themselves, it makes it perfectly alright for these companies to do so morally. At which point they just hand the stuff over to the government.

  7. Encryption? by cwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I somehow doubt that they are just using a "commercially available network-analysis product". I mean what "commercially available network-analysis product" breaks encryption?

    1. Re:Encryption? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I somehow doubt that they are just using a "commercially available network-analysis product". I mean what "commercially available network-analysis product" breaks encryption?

      Is this really news to anyone? I thought the original report showed they were using a Narus box. If I recall correctly it does not break encryption, but it will automatically make copies of matching encrypted flows for later analysis and cracking. My guess would be they just make copies of encrypted traffic they are interested in then move on to the big guns if it is really, really important (which they may or may not have ever actually done).

    2. Re:Encryption? by diersing · · Score: 1
      How much traffic reaching that room is encrypted? If you're thinking of TLS doesn't each hop need to at least decrypt the header to get the routing informaiton?

      Of course, I'm sure the NSA could *somehow* get a copy from each commerically/publically availabe CA if they really wanted to.

    3. Re:Encryption? by Aspirator · · Score: 2, Informative

      doesn't each hop need to at least decrypt the header to get the routing informaiton?

      No. The header is not encrypted, only the payload.

      It is unlikely that without huge resources that an intermediary could decrypt an otherwise
      intact communication (i.e. no man-in-the-middle attack took place).

    4. Re:Encryption? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing. The fact that a Narus box was being used was definitely mentioned in the original coverage of this issue.

    5. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      openssl encryption here on openvpn for anonet using tls, and self signed certificates, and it changes every so oftern using an algorithm i choose with my peers, eat that NSA!

    6. Re:Encryption? by 2names · · Score: 1

      Alright, Strathmore, we've heard enough from you.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    7. Re:Encryption? by Noryungi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean what "commercially available network-analysis product" breaks encryption?

      Except, of course, that breaking encryption is the Holy Grail of Signal Intelligence. Sometimes, Traffic Analysis -- which is exactly what the NSA is doing here acording to the Wired article -- is just as interesting, and a lot easier to do.

      Knowing that person A is talking to person B, and that the number of messages between the two is increasing, and where and when each message has been sent (not to mention what type of traffic is taking place) is also very informative. If you know A, a known terrorist, is exchanging a lot of messages with B, a PhD student in nuclear physics in a top-notch university, is enough to raise red flags all over the place, regardless of what kind of encryption is used to protect the messages themselves. Which is why NSA has illegally gone fishing in the first place.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    8. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, anyone remember what the NSA was founded to do?

      Crack and manufacture codes.

      Don't forget that they have MASSIVE computing power available as well.

      I'd suggest encrypted traffic is the least of their concerns on this

    9. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you know A, a known terrorist

      If you know A is a terrorist, why hasnt he been arrested? If he's not in the country, why isn't he wearing a cruise missle as a hat yet? This "oh lets see who else he can implicate before we take him down" attitude is why binLaden is still alive now, and is probably directly responsible for 9/11.

      This datamining is a waste of time and money. If we dont know who the terrorists are, the best we'll find out is the popularity of pizzahut vs. dominos. If we do know, then we should be arresting them before they manage to blow anything up or recruit more terrorists to their cause.

    10. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which is why NSA has illegally gone fishing in the first place.


      It has never been illegal to snoop traffic. The NSA is within their mandate to snoop all the traffic they can get a hold of. Now given not all traffic passes through them, getting might be illegal depending on how the aquire the data feed. Assumming, of course, that the NSA doesn't provide all the top level routers :-)
    11. Re:Encryption? by Danathar · · Score: 1

      If you are really concerned. When you are using encryption, if possible use ciphers that were NOT developed by NSA/CIA like Blowfish AND use as big a key as possible (within acceptable performance).

      Of course if the NSA has a supersecret way of breaking all encryption (like the movie sneakers) then of course we are all screwed.

    12. Re:Encryption? by MountainLogic · · Score: 0

      Blowfish was developed by Bruce Schneier and frineds. Not the spooks.

    13. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several:
      Any SSL accelerator can do it , given the private key.
      An example is the Radware CT100/Appaccel, but most load balancing companies have this capability.
      SSLDump is an OSS app that does the same thing.
      If you have an in-line device, you can break any session, and proxy the connection both ways. Some Examples:
      SCIP
      Finjan
      Blue Coat
      Breach Security also provides an SSL Inspection plugin and appliance that is OEMed by various IDS vendors.
      A Google search for SSL Proxy traffic Monitor returns a number of interesting responses. If you can proxy the service, you can do transparent man in the middle attacks on it.
      Full Disclosure: I have worked for both Radware and Breach security on these products, and did a SANS tooltalk on the topic (login required).

    14. Re:Encryption? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Knowing that person A is talking to person B, and that the number of messages between the two is increasing, and where and when each message has been sent (not to mention what type of traffic is taking place) is also very informative. If you know A, a known terrorist, is exchanging a lot of messages with B, a PhD student in nuclear physics in a top-notch university, is enough to raise red flags all over the place, regardless of what kind of encryption is used to protect the messages themselves.

      I think you might be confused. I'm pretty sure this is not traffic matching, per se but packet inspection. Otherwise this could handle a lot more traffic. Just matching IP address A and B and the traffic levels is easy. When the IP addresses are changing though, this does let them match encryption Key A and B and traffic levels. It also lets them match e-mail for address A and B and traffic levels, unless someone is using a proxy.

      That is all well and good, but this particular system is a lot more about reading 100,000 random individuals' e-mail searching for the word "jihad" in conjunction with the word "Washington," in conjunction with traffic to the unfriendly nations IP space, or the like. Or it would be good for searching for jpegs in conjunction with a list of the IP addresses of the Democratic party congresscritters and making copies/records of those files just in case any are porn and can be used to blackmail them.

    15. Re:Encryption? by Nutria · · Score: 2, Funny
      If he's not in the country, why isn't he wearing a cruise missle as a hat yet?

      It's Bad Form to drop missile on viable states, even when they disagree with you.

      Nuking France does sounds tempting, though.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    16. Re:Encryption? by Nutria · · Score: 1
      Not the spooks.

      Based on Danathar's bad/ambiguous grammar, he might be saying that the NSA did not create Blowfish.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    17. Re:Encryption? by Garion+Maki · · Score: 1

      probably becouse terrorists tend to grow in the wild, making it hard to find every terrorist before they start creating mayhem.
      however, people have the habbit of searching likeminded people to accomplish common goals.
      so by keeping an eye on the friends of that known (but hard to hit) terrorist, you can probably catch other terrorists, who in turn can work as bait for more terrorists etc.
      now weed out the big terrorists on a regular basis and keep an eye on the smaller terrosist and you've probably reached the situation like it is now.

      however, if you take down every terrorist as soon as you get a suspicion he is a terrorist, then you will 1) waste allot of resources on people who just seem like terrorists, but who don't have the guts or even the real intend of creating mayhem (just think about the people who try to look big by acting like a hacker, but who coulden't program a 'hello world' app, but then for terrorists) and 2) the real terrorists will be harder to find, as they addapt to survive, untill ofcourse after they end up on the passenger list of that airplane that crashed into a tower earlier that day.

      --
      All indicators show that the human race is selectively breeding itself for stupidity.
    18. Re:Encryption? by carrier+lost · · Score: 1

      is enough to raise red flags all over the place

      Hmm. The FBI and the CIA both knew that Saudi students were taking commercial aircraft flying lessons. Hell they even knew that the "students" weren't interested in landing the planes, just flying them. And, since the early '80's, there had been plenty of speculation (and some testing) about what kind of damage could be done to a structure with an airliner.

      911 wasn't a failure of surveillance. It was a failure of interpretation and commmunication.

      feh.

      MjM

    19. Re:Encryption? by Jettra · · Score: 1

      I recently tried to find software tools to record my own VOIP calls. I found Cain & Abel: http://www.oxid.it./ It is a freeware product that provides a lot of network monitoring function. The site claims that "there are no illegal applications here!". I'm not a lawyer, so that might be correct. I nievely installed the software thinking it would allow me to monitor my own traffic. It did so... and much more. I was shocked at all the login passwords and network traffic that it easily proccessed and available for me to investigate. Like VOIP packets were sticked together and available to listen to with a single click. I use a cable provider for Internet access and I saw hundreds of machines that it started to monitor for me. Not only did I find many of my own passwords pop up in plain text, but I believe I saw many others. I don't advise you to install this software, unless you really know what the implications are. I don't... I removed it! But I was definately shocked and awed.

      Note the NSA apparently uses it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/postpho tos/orb/asection/2006-01-27/4.htm. However, I can not verify the authenticity of this photo.

      My advice: don't install Cain & Abel. It probably does way more then your looking for and doesn't cost anything.

    20. Re:Encryption? by cooldemo · · Score: 1

      "use as big a key as possible (within acceptable performance)" - I would say also as big as allowed, there are some laws that set a restriction to key size(as far as I know).

    21. Re:Encryption? by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Yea..thanks. I really screwed up that sentence. I meant what you said.

    22. Re:Encryption? by diersing · · Score: 1
      Maybe I'm confusing terms, Encapsulating Security Protocol (ESP) is part of TLS or IPSec or something... when I read about it (some time ago) I got the impression that it encrypted (at least part of) the header.

      Not that it matters, the NSA will end up doing whatever they want with Bush in office - he'll simply bend his powers to make it happen as long as he can sell it as fighting the war on privacy.... er, I mean terrorism.

    23. Re:Encryption? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      911 wasn't a failure of surveillance. It was a failure of interpretation and commmunication.

      And political correctness woven into policy. CIA & FBI weren't allowed to talk to each other. Might impose on some foreigner's civil rights. Damn you, Bill Clinton.

      Over the years, political correctness and fear of bad press have woven their way into the bureaucracy of the FBI.

      http://www.reason.com/links/links033006.shtml

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    24. Re:Encryption? by carrier+lost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for the link! Interesting reading.

      I'm a little baffled by your comments about "political correctness" and Bill Clinton, however. According to the article you linked:

      "This decision to deny a warrant gave rise to the myth that 'The Wall' between overseas intelligence and criminal investigations made the PATRIOT Act necessary. To this day this myth is cherished among right-wing radio talkers and has, just now, morphed into a clumsy justification for the White House's sidestepping the FISA court and directing its own wiretap frenzy via the NSA. This is all pure fantasy.

      "Instead of clueless Carter-era restrictions on domestic spying or insufficient distrust of civil liberties, Samit cited 'obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism' by top FBI officials as what stopped his investigation."

      and:

      "Minneapolis, Phoenix, New York. Three different Bureau offices were hot on the terror plot in the days leading up to 9/11 and all were stiffed by Washington. If that is not institutional incompetence, Stalin purge-worthy stuff, heaven help the next 3,000 martyrs to J. Edgar Hoover's über-suits."

      MjM

    25. Re:Encryption? by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      There is no "big gun" technology with the NSA. Why do people hype the technology of the government and its agencies when they are shown time and time again that the tech they actually have and use is rather common stuff.

      There is no mysterious super technology being used by our government. This is for very simple reasons:

      1) Government workers are pretty average, or below average, in the tech field. And like every U.S. company they employ contractors for any technical work past putting an Excel spreadsheet together.

      2) Contractors for the government fit in to two categories: the high tech and the overpaid. The high tech contractors never work exclusively for the government and the technology they peddle has already been in the market a few years. The overpaid are exclusive government contractors whose technology is, in truth, a collection of the high tech sub-contractors I just spoke of.

    26. Re:Encryption? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      There is no "big gun" technology with the NSA. Why do people hype the technology of the government and its agencies when they are shown time and time again that the tech they actually have and use is rather common stuff.

      By "big guns" I was referring to bypassing/cracking the encryption used on the data. This could be getting a warrant and seizing one of the computers and using it to decrypt. It could be a well-crafted dictionary attack. It could be brute forcing the encryption (whatever you say the NSA has more raw computing power available to them then pretty much any other organization in the world). It could be hiring a contractor to break into the data on their behalf. What I was not implying was that they had some super-secret macro-mathematics based chip based on the movie, "Sneakers."

      There is no mysterious super technology being used by our government.

      Actually, the government is engaged in dedicated research with their own personnel into a variety of areas. Certainly they have weapons systems and aircraft technology not available to anyone else. Leaks and declassification of everything from the atom bomb to the SR-71 have proven that pretty well. Is the NSA involved in research like this? I don't know. Nonetheless, they have the funding, legal pull, and people needed to have a very good chance of unencrypting some given data if they are motivated to do it.

    27. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My guess would be they just make copies of encrypted traffic they are interested in then move on to the big guns if it is really, really important (which they may or may not have ever actually done).


      I would *hope* that your are right, there... another, possible, scenario, however, would be that anything which appears to be encrypted (some relatively simple dictionary/relational DB programs could be used to check for most non-steganographic methods) gets queued up to a cracking-farm (e.g. special-purpose cluster), without a great deal (or any, really) of direct human intervention required, and the results are red-flagged (e.g. this.WasEncrypted()=true) for further analysis.


      I remember, back in college, sending faked pgp keys, completely bogus, heavily encrypted packets, nonsense messages including large numbers of [assumed] red-flag key-words, &c. with the sole intention of wasting computer time at the no-such-agency.


      My point [if I have one, here] is that it doesn't require a person steaming open envalopes, and using a Drogan's Decoder Wheel to decypher your "private" communications, these days. On the bright side, computers are not likely to abuse their "knowledge" by e.g. blackmailing, stalking, &c. people. On the down side, an assumption of privacy is difficult to support, these days, just about anywhere (e.g. when out, camping, I sometimes enjoy pointing out some of the swiftly moving "stars" to my friends ("smile - you're on candid [satalite] camera!"., I assume that any of my [and everyone elses] phone calls may be monitered, either live, or recorded for possible future use [against me], that emails are saved, &c.


      Am I paranoid? As I understand it, ideas (such as these) do not constitute a psychotic symptom unless held with delusional intensity. Am I being delusional?


      Maybe...

      • Phone calls are not being monitored/analysed (without probable cause, warrents, &al.).
      • Electronic communications (e.g. email) are not being monitored/archived (I can still find old emails that I sent out 15 years ago, by using Google).
      • There isn't a booming industry based on the collection, and dissemination of information about people (e.g. contact information, buying history, credit record, music preferences, brand of cigaretts, s3xual orientation, criminal history, driving record, &c.)...


      But I'm not betting on it.

    28. Re:Encryption? by diersing · · Score: 1

      Just for me - (oh how I love using google to fine my little notes on /. VPN in tranport mode encrypts the payload. VPN in tunnel mode encryptes the entire packet.... or something

    29. Re:Encryption? by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      Certainly they have weapons systems and aircraft technology not available to anyone else.

      Why? And why do these weapons and aircraft never surface in times of war? Are they saved for a very special day? And, in what quantity do we have them? Couldn't be much, since military aircraft and weapon systems are large objects (difficult to move or hide), very expensive, and require massive resources (ie lots of personnel) in order to manufacture. Since said personnel are apt to quiting, like in every other job in the world, it is only a matter of time before the secret project is leaked to the public.

      Leaks and declassification of everything from the atom bomb to the SR-71 have proven that pretty well.

      Neither is very secret actually since many countries have said technology. But in both cases they are one important thing: very expensive to produce. This expense is usually the limiting factor known as a "cost of entry". Even having the knowledge on how to build one, I do not have the funds to do it.

    30. Re:Encryption? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Why? And why do these weapons and aircraft never surface in times of war?

      They do. The SR-71 could fly higher and faster than pretty much anything ever developed. It was developed in secret and deployed for spying missions for years before its existence was leaked to the public and then later made public. Now you can rent space on one for your personal low gravity, subspace experiments.

      The F-117 stealth bomber was first built in the 70's then put into production and use in 1983. It was not publicly known about until 1988 and some of the design is still classified. That is five years of production use in the army and more than 15 years in flight as a secret.

      You don't think the Air-force maintains huge, top secret testing facilities with gigantic runways for fun do you? Just look up area 51 in wikipedia or something.

      Neither is very secret actually since many countries have said technology.

      You're missing the point. When the projects were still secret, no one had such technology. The SR-71 first flew in the 60's and more than doubled the fastest speed of even experimental aircraft that had been built at the time. Expense is always part of technology, but if you think back to the types of technology, suborbital extreme speed spying and the like, there was nothing else like them at the time. Rumors of what kinds of aircraft the government has kept secret abound, ranging from orbital planes (very probable) to exotic propulsion mechanisms (less likely). One thing very few experts doubt is that they have something.

    31. Re:Encryption? by schamarty · · Score: 1

      dd if=/dev/urandom | ssh other.box.across.country dd of=/dev/null

      Let that run for a few days ;-) For good measure, kill and restart it once in a random number of hours

  8. Functional Spec and Deliverables by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From TFfunctional specification:
    The Semantic Traffic Analyzer received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

    Orwell, G. Functional Specification, Narus STA 6400 (rev. 1984)

    From TFA, the deliverable:

    We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their VOIP calls.

    AT&T. Your world, delivered.

    1. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Yeah, this is like Sovjet times withthe government spying mainly on its own inhabitants all over again, but this time its the "good" site doing it. And with technological possibilities that the Sovjet leaders couldnt even dream of, as they are beyond the imagination of what was possible in the 50s-80s. I wonder if theres a way out if this anymore. You could maybe move to the "rogue" states as the US doesnt seem to have a clue whats happening out there.

      Actually I recently saw a documentary on East Germany (DDR), where they had phonetapping equipment consisting of batteries of tape recorders tapping all lines, that could turn on at the moment that certain "suspicious" words were spoken (most have been a very fancy piece of tech at the time).

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T. Your world, delivered.

      Correction:
      AT&T. Their world, delivered.

    3. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by HoboMaster · · Score: 1

      Please note: spelling "Soviet" as "Sovjet" does not make you cool or Russian. It just makes you a failure at English.

      This is the same issue NBC had with the whole Turin/Torino thing. It's not cool, it's just self-important douchebaggery.

      --
      Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
    4. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      AT&T. Your traffic, delivered to the NSA.
      AT&T. Your traffic, recorded.

    5. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by LiLWiP · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God I'm sick of people mentioning fucking 1984 as if by doing so they're making some sort of insightful fucking point.

    7. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by couchslug · · Score: 1

      With understanding of a system comes understanding of how to manipulate what that system "sees". With excellent surveillance will come complacency by those running the system...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      So let's mention David Icke (dot com) instead. I recommend "And The Truth Shall Set You Free" but probably any of it is worth the time.

      --
      I come here for the love
    9. Re:Functional Spec and Deliverables by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Well, this is a free internet, and I will write Sovjet with a 'j' for as long as the NSA and Homeland Security will let me!



      BTW, in Sovjet Russia, you correct the Spelling Nazis!

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  9. Hm. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Does it make anybody else nervous that there is a market for these products? "off the shelf" products that can scale to this degree?

    If enough large companies are purchasing these to the degree that a company manufactures this equipment...exclusively.. doesn't that strike an interesting chord?

    --
    Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    1. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, it says to me that there are companies out there testing the security of their own networks.

      What a terribly interesting chord.

    2. Re:Hm. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does it make anybody else nervous that there is a market for these products? "off the shelf" products that can scale to this degree? If enough large companies are purchasing these to the degree that a company manufactures this equipment...exclusively.. doesn't that strike an interesting chord?

      Supply and demand is somewhat elastic. Where I work right now we build fairly specialized traffic monitoring servers for the core and edge routers of ISPs. While we don't manufacture our own hardware, we do make use of hardware designed for traffic analysis like this and sold to numerous companies that create devices needing the same basic characteristics. Whether you are making a packet analyzer, a high-level forensic tool, a firewall, an IDS, a traffic shaper, or something else, you may very well need basically the same hardware. So maybe 50 customers want something as expensive as what Narus makes for the high end, that can handle that much throughput. If they are willing to pay enough, someone (like Narus) will build it. Regulation compliance budgets are pretty large this year.

      Of course Narus probably did not start out selling a "snooping" device. Look at their customers. They are all major ISPs and telecoms. The smart money says they started as a way to track traffic for billing and expanded as their customers needed to comply with more government regulations.

    3. Re:Hm. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 1

      Uh, what network security test do you perform that includes the step "record all IP traffic for all users, 24/7, for a couple of years" ?

      --
      Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    4. Re:Hm. by jhines · · Score: 1

      AT&T isn't the only telecom left. Large retailers, banks, credit card companies also have a need to store trillions of records.

    5. Re:Hm. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      AT&T isn't the only telecom left. Large retailers, banks, credit card companies also have a need to store trillions of records.

      Actually, the constraint here is throughput, not storage. How many Gigabytes per second can you match against a regular expression while still not introducing significant latency in the packets you forward? Copying the matching flows into a huge database for examination is the easy part.

    6. Re:Hm. by hacker · · Score: 1
      If enough large companies are purchasing these to the degree that a company manufactures this equipment...exclusively.. doesn't that strike an interesting chord?

      The irony is that the sabre-rattling crowd screams "Use encryption!", but what they don't realize is that encryption is essentially illegal, in the US. Sure, you can use it, but if you refuse to hand over your password, passphrase, keys.. you've broken the law, and will be arrested and jailed until you do hand over your keys/passwords.

      Nice world we live in, eh?

      Our obligation as a citizen of this great nation is to defend it against all aggressors, foreign and domestic . Defend the nation, not the government. It may not be necessary now, but may someday become necessary to defend this nation against the government, just as was done in 1776.

    7. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't have to be done inline. Use a tap to get a copy of all the data sent to another port, then do your filtering there. No latency in packet forwarding--in fact, your intrusion is seamless to the customers!

    8. Re:Hm. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Does it make anybody else nervous that there is a market for these products? "off the shelf" products that can scale to this degree?

      Linux scales quite well. Does that scare you?

    9. Re:Hm. by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      I like how you link to an article about how British police want it to be illegal to not hand over your keys, which didn't mention US law at all, in order to "prove" that it's already a crime not to hand over those keys in the US.

      Using encryption in the US is not by any means "essentially illegal", and you cannot be forced to hand over your keys without probable cause that you've committed an actual crime.

      As for using any technology to try to cover up evidence of another crime, encryption is completely irrelevant to the issue. Obstruction of justice is a crime regardless of how you do it.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    10. Re:Hm. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      This doesn't have to be done inline. Use a tap to get a copy of all the data sent to another port, then do your filtering there. No latency in packet forwarding--in fact, your intrusion is seamless to the customers!

      That is, more or less, the way it works, but none of the systems really have the capacity to analyze and record all of the traffic flowing through a core router, in detail, for any length of time. Also, mostly the interest is in reassembling entire communications based upon a match to one of the packets. Given this, in order to record an entire traffic flow, or conversation, the turnaround for matching the flow against all your regexps has to be fast enough that you can capture and store the rest of the flow.

      I believe in this particular case the system was analyzing something like 5% of the traffic at any given time. So, obviously assuring the packets are forwarded on time is the primary concern of the core router involved, but it is also receiving instructions for what goes to the Narus device over the tap and/or the Narus device is deciding which flows to analyze before it has to toss them to make room for incoming traffic. I'm not sure which in this case.

      Note, I haven't read Narus's literature in quite a while and I've never used one, personally, let alone have any knowledge of this setup, except from what I read in the press. I'm piecing this together from news articles, what I recall, and what other companies in the industry do.

  10. Time enough by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Insightful
    'Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record'

    Great! So, do you get the Amazing PauseTheUniverseTechnology free with this nifty gadget? Because it'll take some time to review "anything that comes through".

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Time enough by LilWolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      'Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record'

      Not to worry. The RIAA will soon sue them for being able to record illegally downloaded songs. Problem solved.

    2. Re:Time enough by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, this is an interesting point. If I send an email containing a copyright document (e.g. a draft of an article I have written, sent to my editor), and it passes over their connection, then they will copy it. This copying involves making an unauthorised copy of a copyrighted work. Since I live in the UK, my email is copyrighted in the UK, and the copyright works in the USA via the Berne convention. If a private company is violating this copyright then they owe me significant damages (thanks to certain paid-for legislation). If it is the US government, then they are in violation of the Berne convention. If the USA is violating the Berne convention, then we can regard all works originally copyrighted in the USA as being in the public domain in the rest of the world. Either way, it sounds like I win...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Time enough by Surt · · Score: 1

      They don't need to listen to everything, just what interests them. For example, if they track down one person linked to Al-Qaeda, they can then listen to all of that person's calls, and decide who is interesting among those, and then listen to all of their calls, and so on.

      Or, if you are a corrupt homeland security agent, you can browse through random calls (well, profiled random calls ... calls with elevated stress levels in the voice, or at odd times of night, etc) looking for someone to blackmail.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Time enough by pla · · Score: 1

      Because it'll take some time to review "anything that comes through".

      True, and for that reason, this won't help much to prevent any short-term activity.

      After-the-fact, however, it would tend to allow a near 100% detection rate - Assuming the subject used any form of electronic communication (which, interestingly enough, tends to make this all the less useful for detecting terrorists, who strongly favor ultra-low-tech methods). Case in point, the recent Slashdot article on using phone records to track down Whitehouse whistle-blowers. The leaks still happened, but if this alleged data collection really has occurred, it would only take a minimum effort for a human agent to manually go through a few dozen pre-heuristically-filtered hours of data to pinpoint exactly who leaked what, when, where, possibly why, and to whom.

      Also, don't underestimate the NSA's ability to weed out the vast majority of uninteresting traffic, as well as to detect (some of) the most interesting traffic. They don't need to follow up on every use of the word "bomb"; but if it occurs with certain other not-commonly-known details (operation code-names, classified locations, names of people under cover, etc), they have a pretty good chance of finding something juicy.



      And just for the record - I do not believe a near-perfect post hoc detection rate justifies the nearly total loss of privacy rights this system (if real) would necessarily entail.

    5. Re:Time enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is an interesting point. If I send an email containing a copyright document (e.g. a draft of an article I have written, sent to my editor), and it passes over their connection, then they will copy it. This copying involves making an unauthorised copy of a copyrighted work.

      Actually, it was a joke. Your point, on the other hand, is absurd.

    6. Re:Time enough by KnightStalker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great! So, now all we need is news that the UK is surveilling all of your network traffic and US citizens can enjoy the same benefits!

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
    7. Re:Time enough by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Does that we should go after every owner of every device that receives/stores/transmits the packets of the copyrighted material at the Internet hops?

    8. Re:Time enough by MrNougat · · Score: 1

      You're in the UK, so you probably pay more attention to US politics than most American citizens, but in case you forgot --

      The President of the United States can, in "time of war," "set aside" any law he/she (ha!) so chooses. Which means that the US gov't can, with the president's permission, ignore the Berne convention legally.

      Previous US presidents have set aside laws, yes. About 350 total before GW Bush. GW Bush has set aside ~750 in his term alone.

      So, all you people who think you can do something silly like "apply existing laws to the actions of the US government" -- think again. The executive branch has its own specially tailored set of laws and freedoms that the rest of the US doesn't get to play by.

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    9. Re:Time enough by josh82 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You, sir, are a genius. (And, no, I am not being sarcastic, though I may be easily impressed)

      While some might want to fight reactionary and all-too-corporate-backed legal policies with pithy appeals to such things as the "rule of law" and "human rights", this method pits such reactionary, corporate-backed legal policy against (drum roll...) corporate-backed legal policy!

      Turning the overlord's law against itself, however, is something that will only get you figuratively crushed, if you don't know what you're doing. Are you sure you know what you're doing?

    10. Re:Time enough by suggsjc · · Score: 0

      Very interesting point. However, I'm not sure thats how it would go down. Since you sent that via a method that made no attempts to keep it secure (no encryption) then I would think the claim could be made that it was part of the public domain, and thus not capable of being copyrighted. I make no claims to know the ins/outs of the law, but if you were to make that claim, and take action with its far-reaching implications then I this would just be the first of many defense techniques brought against you. Either way, I doubt that you would "win" that easily.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    11. Re:Time enough by imemyself · · Score: 1

      Those devices do not permanently store or archive them. This does.

      I can't express how big of a smile would be on my face if somebody nailed AT&T in the ass for this. Its almost too good to be true.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    12. Re:Time enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there's kiddie pr0n on those lines.

      Doesn't that mean they are in possession of -- and viewing -- kiddie pr0n on a daily basis? That's a felony. Won't someone think of the children?

    13. Re:Time enough by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      The UK requires ISPs to retain information on their customers for several years. It's called "data retention" - I believe it covers emails, URLs requested, and I'm not sure but I thought I heard it covered what IP they had at what time and what IPs you talk to.

      Police can get this data without a warrant.

      This is relatively recent, and was "anti-terror" legislation.

    14. Re:Time enough by hacker · · Score: 1
      About 350 total before GW Bush. GW Bush has set aside ~750 in his term alone.

      Do you have a citation for this? I'm anxious to see if this is true..

    15. Re:Time enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if the President cannot be sued by US law for not respecting the Berne agreement, that is his right as you pointed out. But it releases every other signatory of the Berne to uphold US copyright. So this is the twist, a UK citizen wouldn't have to uphold a US copyrighted doc anymore, and the US citizen or company who had the copyright couldn't sue Bush for letting it happen.

    16. Re:Time enough by MrNougat · · Score: 1

      Heard the story on NPR a week ago or so. I am digging now, but probably won't have a link till morning.

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    17. Re:Time enough by MrNougat · · Score: 1

      Here's someplace to start:

      http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

      The official term is "signing statement." Basically, the president attaches this statement to a bill, explaining how the law applies differently, or does not apply at all, to whomever he decides.

      Instead of using veto power, the executive branch is usurping the roles of both the legislative and judicial branches through the extensive use of these signing statements. This, when the Congress is majority Republican, and the Supreme Court vastly conservative. It always makes me think - what are they doing that's so bad that they don't even think their comrades would let them get away with it, that they have to hide behind signing statements?

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    18. Re:Time enough by hkb · · Score: 1

      Since they don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights, I'd be surprised if they gave a shit about copyright laws.

      --
      /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
    19. Re:Time enough by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Surely not permanent as in forever/never-ending/eternal? Nothing lasts forever. Is there an applicable legal distinction between the existence of copies of copyrighted material lasting milliseconds as opposed to seconds, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, etc.?

    20. Re:Time enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the copier have to gain something from it? If I copied your copyrighted works and it sat on my hard drive, never utilized for anything, did you lose anything, did I gain anything?

      Somehow I don't think this would work.

      Of course, IANAL, and could be completely wrong, it's happened before.

    21. Re:Time enough by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the US President could not be sued under US law, but violating the Berne Convention would still release every other signatory of the Berne Convention from their obligation to enforce US copyrights.

    22. Re:Time enough by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The President of the United States can, in "time of war," "set aside" any law he/she (ha!) so chooses.

      No, he may not, unless you're a GOPist.

      About 350 total before GW Bush. GW Bush has set aside ~750 in his term alone.

      Based on these figures, it sounds like you're referring to "signing statements". While these statements are very troubling and have yet to be reviewed by the Court, they are not "set-asides" of the law.

    23. Re:Time enough by MrNougat · · Score: 1

      Based on these figures, it sounds like you're referring to "signing statements". While these statements are very troubling and have yet to be reviewed by the Court, they are not "set-asides" of the law.

      You are absolutely correct. At the time of my first post, I couldn't remember the phrase 'signing statement.'

      My understanding of signing statements is that they allow the president to reinterpret the bill passed by Congress so that said bill is applied only in the way the president chooses, without consideration from the judiciary or rebuttal from the legislature. Perhaps such statements don't "set aside" laws in the purest sense, but as you've said, they are troubling.

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    24. Re:Time enough by deeLo57 · · Score: 0

      The NSA and UK intelliegence services are fully integrated.
      British officers sit in US listening posts and US officers sit in British listening stations
      all information is compleatly shared by all of thier assets.

  11. The evidence by op12 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wired News has posted the AT&T whistleblower's evidence, which AT&T is trying to get returned to them and out of court documents: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70908-0.htm l?tw=wn_index_3

  12. One of the perks of living in Mt. View... by AriaStar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is that we hear about stuff like this as fact before the rest of the world even hears it as rumor. I believe it's been a while that companies have been using this to keep track of what their employees are doing on work time (where I work, we had to sign a document stating that we knew that any and all communications at work, from VOIP to e-mail to webpages, regardless of encryption, could be recorded with no further notice) and to follow court-ordered tracking. The internet is not a secure place to be by any means, and it's best to proceed as if someone is watching. Because, chances are, someone is.

  13. Well, I feel better now! Not. by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm so happy to know that the product the NSA - with the help of AT&T - used to analyze phone number patterns and the like can be purchased by any citizen.

    But - that's not the problem as I see it. The problem, to borrow and massacre a line from "Jurrasic Park", is that they were so eager to see if they could they didn't consider if they should.

    Take the domestic to international wiretap thing. Under US law, listening in on foreign conversations is A-OK (whether that's legal in other countries I'm not even going to worry about). But the law is clear: the second there's a domestic person on that call, the NSA has to get permission from the courts. And not only that, it can be a secret court. And not only a secret court, but they can do it up to 3 days after they start - so there's no issue of "Dang, we'd listen to this call from an Al Queda agent, but we can't because Michael Moore's on the phone, and the warrant will take too long!" No - they can start now, get the warrant later.

    Then there's the domestic phone call tracking. Even if this is not strictly illegal, it still smacks of wrong. (Yes, I think there are things not illegal that are still wrong. Like Mint Oreos. Very wrong, just not illegal.) Why? Because there's no independant, "checks and balances" oversight. And yes, I have things to hide, before you ask, so I don't want the government picking that out. Like people in politics I call because I disagree with their politicies, or calls to an abortion clinic for a friend of mine who's husband is abusive and says he'll kill her if she calls the clinic, or to a reporter because my place of work is doing illegal things (note for the clueless: the former might or might not be true, but they are examples of why people might not want the government tracking calls) - the list goes on. So I don't want the government snooping in on, especially when there's no guaruntee that Joe Politician can't look in and try and use that data against me or my family or the very government system itself.

    So, great to know that there are over the shelf components to track log files. I'm more interested in making sure that another branch of the government is at least watching out to make sure that this data is not being abused. No, I don't need all of the details - that's why we have elected leaders whom I (hopefully) trust enough to look out for my interests - I just want to make sure those interests are protected by the process.

    Which said process, so far, seems to be either willingly ignored, or outright violated.

    Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I could be wrong. And to the NSA folks tracking this post - Hi!

  14. Err... by cperciva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the equipment found in the "secret" NSA room at AT&T wasn't some elaborate device designed by Big Brother. Rather, it is a commercially available network-analysis product that any company could acquire.

    Sure, anybody could acquire the hardware used. The trick is to get the equipment onto AT&T's network without ending up in jail.

    1. Re:Err... by hacker · · Score: 2, Funny
      The trick is to get the equipment onto AT&T's network without ending up in jail.

      Hey, if the NSA can do it without warrants, why can't we?

    2. Re:Err... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, as the real estate people are fond of saying, "Location, location, location...." I figure the "gee-whiz" NSA part comes in when they (presumably) ship the encrypted traffic they want home and go at it with their Crays, or whatever it is they have.

    3. Re:Err... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that this same equipment is used to track internet usage for ISP's AT&T more than likely put it their themselves.

  15. Tor by wpegden · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is why we should all use Tor. The more people that use it (and setup their node as a server) the faster it gets.

    1. Re:Tor by Billosaur · · Score: 1
      This is why we should all use Tor. The more people that use it (and setup their node as a server) the faster it gets.

      Damn! Now the NSA knows that I've clicked on the link! Cat's out of the bag!

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:Tor by acaben · · Score: 1

      At least you can click on the link. From inside the firewall at the government installation where I work (not related to defense or spying), tor is blocked by filters.

    3. Re:Tor by republican+gourd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are there any estimate as to what percentage of the Tor (or Freenet, or etc etc) nodes are actually run by the Three-Letter-Agencies themselves? Considering that just about every nation has its own intelligence/security type agencies, thats easily a couple hundred nodes right there, probably on 'decent enough' links to get a decent share of traffic but not so fast as to attract suspicion.

      I remember reading about the Freenet Guy's planned changes (moving freenet to a friend-based system where you connect along lines of trust rather than completely anonymously, and immediately thought that the unstated goal was to cut *those* people out as much as possible rather (or in addition to) than the scalability reasons given.

      Hmm, better post this anonymously...

    4. Re:Tor by adamshelley · · Score: 1

      Does it even matter who runs the nodes? Sure they can see the traffic going out their node but i thought the point of tor was that you couldn't find out where it came from initially because each node does not know about previous routes through the network, or is this wrong?

    5. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use tor to get around them.

    6. Re:Tor by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      Can you encrypt your traffic reqests to port 443 of an intermediary server IP address?

    7. Re:Tor by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      Parent asks: How much of the Tor relays are run by the Three-Letter-Agencies?

      In Canada, we have four letter agencies. Any Tor proxies in Canada will not be scanned by mere 3 letter agencies.

      Not that we'd look. After all, we're a polite people.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    8. Re:Tor by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I believe that is the point. Consider, however, the implications of the government requiring all ISPs to use the network monitoring technology. All traffic would be kept, and could be correlated. If your particular Tor connection happened to stay completely within the US, they could still track everything you did. If they got help from other countries, they might still be able to track you.

    9. Re:Tor by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Tor (and other network like it) are only anonymous if you assume that no one entity controls some large fraction of the computers on the network. If one group controls 50% of the network, then they have a good idea that any transmission not from one of their computers was quite likely the initial transmission.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  16. These are the tools or databases by anandpur · · Score: 5, Informative

    From http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php#15
    What is Daytona?
    Daytona is a database management technology originally developed and maintained by the AT&T Laboratories division of AT&T, and is used by AT&T to manage multiple databases. Daytona was designed to handle very large databases and is used to manage "Hawkeye," AT&T's call detail record (CDR) database. Daytona is also used to manage AT&T's huge network-security database, known as "Aurora." As of September 2005, all of the CDR data managed by Daytona, when uncompressed, totaled more than 312 terabytes.
    http://www.research.att.com/projects/daytona/

    What is Hawkeye?
    Hawkeye is AT&T's call detail record (CDR) database, which contains records of nearly every telephone communication carried over its domestic network since approximately 2001, records that include the originating and terminating phone numbers and the time and length for each call.

    What is Aurora?
    Aurora is a network-security database that had been used to store Internet traffic data since approximately 2003. The Aurora database contains huge amounts of data acquired by firewalls, routers, honeypots and other devices on AT&T's global IP (Internet Protocol) network and other networks connected to AT&T's network.

  17. Yawn. by BigMattyC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    News: that the US Government is monitoring all the traffic flowing through the internet backbones provided by major US service providers. Not News(tm): that a company produces a device that can *GASP* *SHOCK* *HORROR* monitor network traffic. Get a grip.

    1. Re:Yawn. by inKubus · · Score: 1

      This is off topic, but I thought it might be relevant within a degree:

      Join thousands of other Americans by calling Congress on Wednesday, May 17 to demand they investigate this government intrusion immediately. ADC, the BORDC, the ACLU, People For the American Way, and other organizations have declared the week of May 15 "National Call-in to Congress Week" and are asking their constituents to call their members of Congress on a specific day. Let's keep those phones ringing in the Congressional halls all week long! Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you.

      Bill of Rights Defense Committee Page

      The snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration's Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB....You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration.

      Dossiers. Remember when the Soviets fell and people started buying their dossiers (this was in the 90's). It was crazy, business people would see that the KGB had a detail synopsis of their daily life, where they worked, who they hung out with, etc. in case they could turn a double agent, etc. On Soviet citizens, they had complete records of phone conversations (transcripts), photos, fingerprints, hair, everything. This is just the beginning. And with so much of our personal business being handled over the 'net (taxes, banking, bills, not to mention email and personal communications, entertainment, and now VoIP phone calls...), it's easier than ever for them to compile a dossier on people.

      But yes, you're right, the fact that the company makes a network recorder is not news. Mainly because there was a Narus story on Slashdot like last month..

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    2. Re:Yawn. by Julia+Cameron · · Score: 1
      News: that the US Government is monitoring all the traffic flowing through the internet backbones provided by major US service providers.

      All the traffic flowing through the Internet backbones provided by major US service providers? Ye Gads!!! Think of all that spam they have to sift through.

      --
      Julia Cameron
      Oich ù agus hiùraibh éile
  18. Monitoring Users? Nawww. by 10100111001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record'

    I'm sure they are just using it to get free porn.

  19. Here's a question... by Avillia · · Score: 0

    Why is it legal for any old schlum to buy this and run it secretly?

    If these tools exist at all outside of ISP end user envrionments (IE; corporate intranet), they should need to report publically what traffic they have access to, and report at a bi-annual audit what traffic had been monitored.

    And if you don't comply with that... You can't use it.

    But... We won't do that, because then we won't make money, even if we could be collecting a multimillion dollar lawsuit from the NSA right now.

    1. Re:Here's a question... by qwijibo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's legal for you to send packets over network connections owned and operated by third parties. If you have an expectation of privacy for data being handled by parties you have no relationship with, you're being unreasonable. I don't have any contract with AT&T, so what they do with my information is outside my control. I wouldn't do business with my ISP if they didn't have network connections that would get traffic to/from the rest of the world for me, so I'm giving up control once I send data out.

      Are you willing to pay 100 times what you pay now to ensure that your traffic doesn't cross the systems of someone who won't respect your privacy? Instead of $50/mo for broadband, would you pay $5000/mo? Keeping data off the backbone networks would be very expensive. Asking them to report what they collect just increases the burden, which translates directly into cost.

      Private companies running this on their own networks are in an even more reasonable position. Are you afraid of them finding out that you're doing something using work computers and work networks on work time? If my employer records the fact that I posted this on company time, that's their choice. It's their system. If I don't want them recording it, I could wait and do it from home later.

      And if they are recording it, I want to give a big thanks to the corporate security and networking guys - you're doing a great job! =)

    2. Re:Here's a question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit.

      My landline telephone isn't encrypted, and I do have an expectation of privacy. In fact, it's illegal to wiretap that. Just because you send something out unencypted doesn't mean you have an privacy expectation.

    3. Re:Here's a question... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      It's legal for you to send packets over network connections owned and operated by third parties. If you have an expectation of privacy for data being handled by parties you have no relationship with, you're being unreasonable.

      This is not necessarily so. First, many technologies apply a strong metaphor to an existing service, even going so far as to assure customers they won't be able to tell the difference. VoIP is the primary consideration here, but e-mail is also a candidate. It is illegal for someone to look in the mail messages you send, so most people (knowing nothing of the technology involved) assume the same is true for e-mail. Thus they have an expectation. If you explain to them it is more like a postcard, most will understand, but they won't understand why their online bills don't have a envelope around them for privacy when their offline bills do. Also, more and more networks are converging. How much POTS traffic made via regular phones runs over the IP network? Try arguing in front a a jury that the difference between whether AT&T does it at the switching station or an individual does it with their server decides whether or not eavesdropping without a warrant is legal.

      Truthfully, for the average user there probably is an expectation of privacy, partially because of laws passed to protect phone and regular mail communication that have not been extended to the internet equivalents.

    4. Re:Here's a question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Score:1, Offtopic)????

      Gee.. I wonder how biased our moderators are this time...

  20. I am starting not to care anymore... by harshmanrob · · Score: 2

    To be honest, I am starting not to care about all of the this post-911/coup attempt to takeover the US government that failed. I will surf where I want, say what a want, and if the government is truly stupid and sends me one of those National Security Letters (NSLs), I will post it right here on slashdot.org as well as rense.com, infowars.com, and anyone else who will post it on their site because I just do not care. Those pentagon photos of "flight 77" was just more smoke and mirrors to keep people distracted from the real problems. Just say it was a shoulder fire missle and the plane is at the bottom of the Atlantic so we can all move on with our lives. The Leo Straussion Neocon facists (Republicans) can come kiss my ass, it's not like anyone can do anything about what they are doing anyway.

    1. Re:I am starting not to care anymore... by roster238 · · Score: 1

      You are correct. There is only one thing to do, build a bomb shelter, a big one. Fill it with food, water, supplies, itunes, etc. Seal yourself inside and I will bury the entrance. I'll come get you in 20 years when the revolution is over. We have got to stop these racist, bigoted, homophobe, don't love their mother, republicans before they put an end to baseball, apple pie, free porn, strip malls, and all other things American...

      --
      I swear I didn't know it was loaded...
    2. Re:I am starting not to care anymore... by zdv · · Score: 1

      We at the government find your ideas intriguing. Somebody will be by to assist you shortly.

  21. reconstruct calls, as in 'listen to'? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    I don't see any big deal with recording all data I/O at AT&T and handing it directly to the National Security Agency. After all, if they have to listen to all my conversations in order to prove I'm not a terrorist, I don't see what the---

    ***WOOP WOOP WOOP! Red flag word used! (Queue NSA goons smashing through my windows)***

    --
    stuff |
  22. Why is this news? by dannyelfman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course you can reconstruct any information that flows across a network thay you have access to. That is unless it's encrypted and you don't know the key.

    1. Re:Why is this news? by fjf33 · · Score: 1

      They can still reconstruct the data. Maybe not make sense of it but they can reconstruct it and save it somewhere for later.

  23. Copyright issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this age of instant copyright, outside of a company using this embedded in its corporate TOS, storing my written communication would be a copyright violation. I'm talking man in the middle, if they are storing then they would be violating.

  24. And this is supposed to make me feel better? by i+am+kman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, article starts with:

    The equipment that former AT&T technician Ed Klein learned was installed in the NSA "secret room" in AT&T's San Francisco switching office isn't some sinister Big Brother box designed solely to help governments eavesdrop on citizens' internet communications." ... - it's a commercial product!

    Oh great - I feel so much better about that. I was just worried that the government might have EXCLUSIVE rights to spy on me! But, as long as it's all shared and everyone can do it, then I guess it's ok.

    Thanks for the post - I'll sleep so much better now.



    Damn - where's the sarcastic emoticon when you need it.

  25. Narus STA 6400? by Ossifer · · Score: 1

    Think of a Beowulf cluster of those!

    1. Re:Narus STA 6400? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beowulf cluster this! What a fucking pathetic buzzword. Do you feel important because you used it? I'd swear that it some king of goddamn panacea to all the worlds technical troubles.

      Just like RRSPs saved all our financial futures... Its the goddamn 80s all over again.

      Gaaaaaag!

      Beowulf, Beowulf, Beowulf!

      er...

      Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

      Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster, Beowulf cluster! (ad infinitum...)

      There, have you all got it out of your fucking systems now? Can we move on?

    2. Re:Narus STA 6400? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wait... it is

  26. AKA... by 9mm+Censor · · Score: 1

    The Big Brother 1000.

  27. No by nonlnear · · Score: 4, Insightful
    By sending IP packets, you are distributing your work. Narus could make a fair use argument that would be a chilling parody of the arguments posted by folks who troll around slashdot arguing that fair use covers anonymous torrents.

    If you don't like it, encrypt it.

    --
    argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
    1. Re:No by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      "If it doesn't fit, you must encrypt." -- the late Johnny Cochran

    2. By sending IP packets, you are distributing your work. Narus could make a fair use argument that would be a chilling parody of the arguments posted by folks who troll around slashdot arguing that fair use covers anonymous torrents.

      First, fair use does not apply to recreating entire works, except in a few, specifically described circumstances that don't apply here. Second, Narus is just selling gear, what someone else does with it is not their problem. Third, their customers are ISPs, given exemption from many copyright laws under common carrier statutes, which could, very well apply here (certainly more so than fair use).

      If you don't like it, encrypt it.

      This won't happen until the tools to do so are are made much easier, it is provided as a service, or both. VPNs are already taking off for corporations. What is needed is for consumer OS's to provide that functionality in a an interoperable way, by default. So yes, this is all Microsoft's fault for retarding the progress of the industry (as usual).

    3. Re:No by nonlnear · · Score: 1
      First, fair use does not apply to recreating entire works, except in a few, specifically described circumstances that don't apply here. Second, Narus is just selling gear, what someone else does with it is not their problem. Third, their customers are ISPs, given exemption from many copyright laws under common carrier statutes, which could, very well apply here (certainly more so than fair use).

      I should have been more clear. I don't believe that it's necessarily a legitimate argument. Just that it's one that could effectively hamstring any judgments on the matter. Especially with the big friends that Narus has.

      Actually, the thing that would legitimize the Narus approach completely is a "liberal" (meaning loose) reading of wiretap laws. An argument could be made that the Narus approach is necessary in order to comply.

      --
      argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
    4. Re:No by flonker · · Score: 1

      Actually, fair use can include making a copy of an entire work. There are different types of fair use. Quoting for the sake of review is probably the one you're thinking of. Making a copy for the sake of having a backup copy is also considered fair use, and involves making a duplicate of the entire work. Copying data in the process of using it (ie. a temporary copy of software into memory) is also fair use.

      And please, no strawman arguments involving distribution. I'm just talking about copying.

    5. Actually, fair use can include making a copy of an entire work.

      I'm pretty sure that was implied when I wrote, "First, fair use does not apply to recreating entire works, except in a few, specifically described circumstances that don't apply here.

      Making a copy for the sake of having a backup copy is also considered fair use, and involves making a duplicate of the entire work. Copying data in the process of using it (ie. a temporary copy of software into memory) is also fair use.

      Actually, the backup copy was legal only through the nonprofit copying clause removed in 1976. It is most likely still legal according to the four consideration enumerated in copyright law, but I don't think this has been successfully proven in court and the courts (district I believe) in the US did specifically state that a backup copy was not "sufficient fair use" to bypass encryption ala the DMCA.

      As for temporary copies in memory, it protects you if you are making a temporary copy while using the work, to which you have a valid right. It does not protect you if you are making a temporary copy for transmitting a work. ISPs and the like are protected by the fact that data is fragmented when transmitted and by the common carrier statutes that also exempt them from responsibility for having kiddie porn, death threats, slander, etc. on their routers.

    6. Re:No by flonker · · Score: 1

      Hrmmm, it seems you may have a point. At first I thought that the DMCA(b) may apply, but it specifically states:
      no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections

  28. Wow by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    There used to be a saying "Cops always have the best drugs!" These days I think it has been replaced with "The NSA always has the best porn!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  29. You're kidding !?!?! by iXiXi · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you mean that if you take a IP packet stream and analyze the headers you can reconstruct the communications??? When did this madness start? What kind of voodoo magic are they using up there?

    1. Re:You're kidding !?!?! by chill · · Score: 1

      So you mean that if you take a IP packet stream and analyze the headers you can reconstruct the communications??? When did this madness start? What kind of voodoo magic are they using up there?

      The kind that allows you to do that in real time, on a 10 Gbps stream of data, with multiple target filters.

      Sort of like tcpdump, netsed and grep on a metric asston of steroids.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  30. RIAA by msbmsb · · Score: 1

    Anything that comes through (an IP network), we can record

    How long until the RIAA comes knocking at this guy's door?

  31. NEWS FLASH!!! by 1336.5 · · Score: 0

    The Government doesnt develop anything. They just restrict the companies they contract or buy from not to say anything about their operations.

    Whoop-de-doo.

    The Governement contracts, it doesnt develop.

  32. i have your solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Visit AnoNet.. a complete Internet unto itself, within the Internet!

    Run everything, talk to anyone, all under a veil of encryption.

    Visit the website.

  33. Doesn't matter by symbolic · · Score: 1

    I don't care if they were running tcpdump...it doesn't make it any less troublesome.

  34. So THAT explains the webcam pics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that you find all over the net. Silly girls thinking they were performing a show for just their boyfriends... So how do I get a job in that division of AT&T??? :-D

    1. Re:So THAT explains the webcam pics... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      So how do I get a job in that division of AT&T??? :-D

      Join the NSA

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  35. Bellyaching by crossmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and all I hear is a bunch of bellyaching and "ooh they're evil!". As I stated a few weeks ago, Who is going to do anything about it? Evertyime we turn around the American government or corporations come up with a new way to spy on us, restrict our rights or do something else to make the world a little less pleasant.

    If they can't come up with anything specific that day, W. calls the RIAA and has them sue a dead woman. They want to make people so damn paranoid that one day they'll just turn around and say "Okay we're taking over your life, here is your itinerary for the day, don't alter this schedule. You have a bowel movement scheduled in 15 minutes". The vast majority will think its an awesome idea.

    These stories are great to remind us what a wasteland this place has become, but they serve no real purpose if no one actually does anything about it.

    1. Re:Bellyaching by woolio · · Score: 1

      Okay we're taking over your life, here is your itinerary for the day, don't alter this schedule. You have a bowel movement scheduled in 15 minutes

      Oh my boss would love that. Imagine the increased productivity that would result!

    2. Re:Bellyaching by crossmr · · Score: 1

      There are places that try that, but then 90% of the workforce goes out and gets a doctor's note saying they're allowed to go whenever they want.

    3. Re:Bellyaching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to disrupt constant monitoring is to provide enough misleading information to make it useless.

      How about creating an army to fight against it?

      Seriously, it does not have to be a real army, just a simulated one.

      Each soldier will only exist as a pattern of suspicious looking web browsing/searches, emails and instant messages.

      Make a client that anyone can download to generate this activity in the background.
      Ensure there is nothing actually illigal, or annoying to other web users about running this client.

    4. Re:Bellyaching by crossmr · · Score: 1

      The only way? I think not.
      There are plenty of ways to disrupt the traffic, that might be the only way you're willing to go about it, but don't pretend there aren't other options.

    5. Re:Bellyaching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are the other options?
      The idea of a downloadable client is that people don't have to get their fat ass off their chair to help out.

    6. Re:Bellyaching by crossmr · · Score: 1

      40% troll? for what? Pointing out the truth?

  36. How Much? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    How much of the Internet traffic can be funneled through this -- or any such -- room? Is it a bottleneck, or something routed around? Just how much of the web's traffic can any single such room "see", and how many rooms like this would it take to see it all -- let alone figure out where to store it?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  37. Re:Monitoring Users? Nawww. Yaaaah by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    I'm sure they are just using it to get free porn.

    And they don't even have to go to the effort of tracking it down. The let everyone else do that work for them.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  38. Anything that comes through , we can record by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Funny

    And the RIAA does not get a cent on royalties! shocking

    In other new, the RIAA sue the NSA!

  39. Not just easily available, but free! by mustafap · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Ethereal. Excellent tool, even for non black hats!

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    1. Re:Not just easily available, but free! by dave562 · · Score: 1

      And it also runs on Windows.

  40. Field Proven! by endernet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the Key Benefits section of their web site... Field-proven ability to meet the most stringent requirements of the world's largest networks such as AT&T, KDDI, Vodafone and Korea Telecom.

  41. Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments"

    Dear Narus,

    -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

    jA0EAwMCiGG6wLlc/6tgyUeJGySx1Ccd8lGe3ugi35iwgMr2yi PxHsoCwtOeytve
    r8fdeb237gtWNHzaen4DpYF9ibJ4E6DCxm8+yGpYcoP7bgEnzJ H49A==
    =BJEi
    -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

    (created with "gpg -a -c"). Just a reminder that if you don't like people reading your email, you and your recipient can rather easily make sure nobody can practically do so.

    The NSA could probably break one PGP message's encryption in a matter of hours (or maybe even minutes), but they couldn't break one million. How about we all really press our friends to get PGP keys made+signed and the software installed...and ENCRYPT EVERY SINGLE PERSONAL EMAIL to them? Good luck to the NSA trying to sift through all that crap.

  42. Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of list by js7a · · Score: 2, Informative
  43. Re:Well, I feel better now! Not. by Surt · · Score: 1

    Even if this is not strictly illegal, it still smacks of wrong. (Yes, I think there are things not illegal that are still wrong.

    Good grief, I hope that pretty much everyone is in agreement that illegal and immoral are intersecting sets for which the intersection is a proper subset of both sets.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  44. Worse than useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This method will produce lots of bellyaching and lawsuits by critics and cost billions of dollars, but other than that, I don't think the governement will actually learn anything from this spying, least of all learn how to stop any terrorist activities who are just as likely to be using encryption as they are to be using a computer to conduct illegal activities.

    I'm not mad about being "spied" on in this fashion, just that they're wasting their time and my money in a huge way. There's no way to produce any meaningful results by snooping about a trillion terrabytes of IP traffic every day.

    Jason

  45. ITMFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.itmfa.com/

    It'd be a start.

    1. Re:ITMFA? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Doesn't anyone realize time is playing against society. Slow paced change isn't really going to help society because by the time we get around to it, it is going to be too late. By the time society clues in that there is a problem it'll be just before the nurse says "It is time for your 3 pm probing to make sure you've been sticking to your special diet".

    2. Re:ITMFA? by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 1

      So let's do something about it, I'm all for getting some action done instead of just bitching about things on the internet, because lets face it, its easy for politicians to ignore objectors if they don't feel threatened by them. If you have any suggestions on something we can actually do or if you wanna help do something about it, we should start now.

    3. Re:ITMFA? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      I posed this question last time:
      What is the appropriate response, and who has the fortitude to stand up and see it through? This is to the point where you can't just go off willy-nilly and throw a stink bomb somewhere and hope it changes. It needs planning, but its also something that has to get beyond the "talking" stage. Someone needs to step forward and take a stance in the US or I can almost see them becoming completely isolated as no one would want to deal with them anymore.

    4. Re:ITMFA? by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 1

      These are my feelings exactly, I just don't see anyone caring about it beyond the Slashdot forums, online games (of all places!) and select other forums, plus maybe one or two people I know. I think the people who feel this way like you and I should organize a community to try to brainstorm ideas if nothing else though. Like I said somewhere on here, the EFF is nice but theres only so much that can be done through the legal system when that is the system that is being subverted.

    5. Re:ITMFA? by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      I say we let nature take it's course. Let's just forget about it, there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Who's gonna fight (and win) against the NSA??? Who *can*?? Seriously. Laws are being broken at the top of the chain here, and the things people are discovering and trying to uncover are being held back due to "National Security concerns" and "If this is released it will help the terrorists hurt America".

      Fuck it. It's not like 90% of the fucking US cares about every action being monitored anyway. It's not like 90% of the fucking US even UNDERSTANDS what's going on. When you work with people whos' eyes glaze over when you ask them to drop to a command prompt, do you really think they're gonna understand anything about major Internet backbone engineering and fiber optic splitter technology??? Yeah, fucking, right.

      Here's my response:

      FUCK YOU, NSA. FUCK YOU, AT&T. How DARE you violate our right to human privacy. You should be ashamed of yourselves for what you're doing, and if the bulk of the American people understood what you were doing to them on a daily basis they'd start a civil war.

      That's all we can do. They're "better" than us; they're "above" us in every aspect of the word besides physically. What can we do, legally, that would change a mother fucking thing? Nothing.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    6. Re:ITMFA? by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right if you're talking about what we can do on the internet (well not absolutely, but I don't even want to talk about the challenges of getting technically illiterate people aquainted with things like anonet). We need to do something outside of slashdot and message boards. If we could organize all the people who feel so strongly on the net and then make a real world appearance, it might actually have an affect, and its better than sitting on our asses and bitching.

  46. They can do it, so can I.... by brix_zx2 · · Score: 0

    And if anyone else wants to..... download Ethereal. Or if you have some big money to spend get Network Generals sniffer. As far as the encryption goes, someone had to write the program that determines how information is encrypted. Which leads to, "If it can be encrypted, it can be forcefully decrypted at an endpoint other than the intended receiver."

    Can't remember who said that, but I always seem to remember it :P

    --
    "brix_zx2, What is your sole purpose in this forum!?!?!"
    "To do whatever you tell me MODERATOR!!!!"
  47. Let all start download couple hundred gig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let see how much disk space the NSA has - let all download couple hundred gig of junk a day!!!

    100,000 people download 100G each = ?

  48. Re:Well, I feel better now! Not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Mint Oreos. Very wrong, just not illegal. Why? Because there's no independant, "checks and balances" oversight.

    Not true, Nabisco is very careful to check every cookie to see how much it weighs on the balance.

    And yes, I have things to hide, before you ask, so I don't want the government picking that out.

    Ah, so you admit to eating Mint Oreos then. Don't worry, the government won't pick out the filling in the center. They'll just take the whole cookie.

  49. Tor Risks by finkployd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just to play devil's advocate.....

    Use Tor, why? So I can get investigated/exposed in the media/arrested when someone uses my node for something illegal? No thanks. Acted as a server node for a while, then decided it was not worth the risk with all this homeland security paranoia.

    Law Enforcement (in this day and age of 0wned PCs, insecure wireless access points, Tor, RIAA tracking IPs to people who don't have computers, etc) STILL considers IP addresses to be valid and accurate identifiers of people. If something got traced to it and the ISP told them you had it at the time, guess what? You did it. The burden of proof would really be on YOU to prove that it was not you who was sending out a threatening email, communicating with a known terrorist, uploading child porn, or whatever. If they do know about Tor, they probably consider it more evidence that you are up to something illegal (just like PGP)

    Perhaps you would be able to create enough reasonable doubt (assuming it was a real trial and not a secret government trial) to get off. I'm sure that would make you feel a little better after having your "crimes" written about at length in the local paper, your picture up on the local (maybe national?) news media, and possibly your money, job, family, and friends gone. Just because you won a court case does not mean everyone will not still assume you are guilty. How many people think OJ is innocent?

    I'm not advocating being spineless and not taking a stand with technology, just remember what the risks are and ask yourself if you are really willing accept them. Today the population trusts anything that law enforcement tells them, especially if it is an internet related crime and even more so if it involves terrorism. Some geek whining about something called "tor" isn't going to convince your community you are not a dirty stinking terrorist.

    Finkployd

    1. Re:Tor Risks by mindtriggerz · · Score: 1

      Easy solution to your qualms:
      DON'T BECOME AN ENDPOINT!
      YOu don't have to be an endpoint, and Tor, freenet, etc. are secure enough that you are protected from trafic analysis. All packets are also encrypted, so it's not like your Localtown PD is going to have the technology smarts needed to determine that you were a part of such a transaction.

    2. Re:Tor Risks by finkployd · · Score: 1

      If everyone takes this approach, Tor will fail. If most people take this approach, the few that are runing endpoints are opening themselves up to the statistical likelihood that something illegal is coming out of their internet connection.

      Finkployd

    3. Re:Tor Risks by mindtriggerz · · Score: 1

      You're right that if everyone did this, Tor'd be screwed. However, many of the endpoint nodes are run by universities, so there's no dire shortage of endpoints. Tor needs both, but for the squeemish, you don't have to run an endpoint. You're still doing SOMETHING to help.

    4. Re:Tor Risks by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      Law Enforcement (in this day and age of 0wned PCs, insecure wireless access points, Tor, RIAA tracking IPs to people who don't have computers, etc) STILL considers IP addresses to be valid and accurate identifiers of people. If something got traced to it and the ISP told them you had it at the time, guess what? You did it. The burden of proof would really be on YOU to prove that it was not you who was sending out a threatening email, communicating with a known terrorist, uploading child porn, or whatever. If they do know about Tor, they probably consider it more evidence that you are up to something illegal (just like PGP)
      No matter what Law Enforcement "considers" it, the law considers it no such thing, and in court (in criminal cases) the government bears the legal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you did whatever was prohibited. Now, of course, with this administration, one shouldn't forget the risk of being punished without any recourse to law at all, but that is another issue.
    5. Re:Tor Risks by finkployd · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about the risk of being punished by the law. I'm talking about losing all of your friends and family because they think you are a terrorist. I'm talking about losing your job, having your name splashed all around in the media as though being charged or investigated makes you guilty (gee, does the media ever do that?). I'm talking about spending tens of thousands to defend yourself. If the government wants to charge you with one of two things (1) being a terrorist or (2) trading in child porn, then your life is effectivly over. Both of those charges can be brought against you just based on something being traced to your IP address. What the courts decide is pretty much irrelevent at that point, you might consider a life in prison better than life outside under those circumstances.

      I just posted this because I always see slashdotters talking big about sending out fake echelon keyword laden email, or trying to fuck with the NSA and/or homeland security and that sort of thing. I wonder if any of them stop to think about what it would be like to be on the end of an investigation. I never have, but it sure does not look fun from what I see in the media.

      Remember Richard Jewell? The FBI had him (falsly) accused of being the Olympic park bomber in 1996. While it created a huge mess of his life, we at least know about it and everyone now knows he is innocent. Imagine that happening today? Do you think he would have the chance to air his grievences in the media and sue the FBI? Or would he be rotting away in gitmo, life over, wondering what he did wrong and how this happened to him?

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Tor Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FinkPloyd made a good point, and I'll just add that if you are accused of being involved in terrorism, kiddy pr0n, etc., the government may technically bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but most red-blooded american, foxnews-watching, fear-crazed juries will convict you on the very barest of circumstantial evidence. Even if you are completely innocent you may be better off accepting a plea than facing the wrath of a jury and the maximum sentence possible.

    7. Re:Tor Risks by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      I'm not talking about the risk of being punished by the law. I'm talking about losing all of your friends and family because they think you are a terrorist.


      Well, I suppose if you have friends and family that blindly trust the government more than people they know very well, that's a risk.

      Of course, the problem there is your choice of friends (family isn't a choice, except the one's you marry or adopt), not your choice of private data interchange technologies.
    8. Re:Tor Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that fucking spineless?

  50. No No No by woolio · · Score: 1

    No! Sending non-broadcast packets on an IP network is not Distribution.

    That's like saying that mailing an envelope via postal mail is distribution!!

    IP packets clearly specify the source and destination address. (i.e. their payload is to only be received by the specified recipent).

    The only difference is that we do not have federal laws that make "opening the contents" of an IP packet to be illegal. Otherwise it is no different than the postal mail system.

    1. Re:No No No by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

      But all the hops between source and destination are receiving/storing/distributing, no?

  51. Increase the use of SSL dramatically by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've thought about buying a SSL setup for my blog so that people coming and going from it can do so in encryption-provided peace. It would be a bold move for civil liberties if hosting services would provide cheap access to SSL for their shared hosting customers. I'd pay an extra $5-$10/month for it, even if the certificate was shared with 20 other blogs at my host. The government just doesn't need to know these things. It's sick and perverted that they would even ask. The only place that it's considered doing your job to be a peeping tom is in the federal government.

    1. Re:Increase the use of SSL dramatically by caluml · · Score: 1

      But as you can't run vhosts over an SSL connection, it would be obvious which site your visitors were visiting.

  52. There is oversight ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then there's the domestic phone call tracking. Even if this is not strictly illegal, it still smacks of wrong. ... Why? Because there's no independant, "checks and balances" oversight ... I'm more interested in making sure that another branch of the government is at least watching out to make sure that this data is not being abused. No, I don't need all of the details - that's why we have elected leaders whom I (hopefully) trust enough to look out for my interests - I just want to make sure those interests are protected by the process.

    There is oversight. Congressional committees were informed years ago. However election season is upon us so there is a lot of fake outrage and posing for the cameras and microphones going on.

    1. Re:There is oversight ... by Politburo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This "oversight" canard is such a joke. Yes, some select members of Congress were told (anywhere from 4-8 people). First off, this disclosure was in violation of the law. The full committees must be notified except for black ops (can't remember the TLA for this right now), which this does not qualify as. Second, these Congressmen are only told. The "oversight" has no approval or veto component. Furthermore, they are sworn to absolute secrecy and cannot under any circumstances divulge anything, at all, to anyone (including their spouses and most trusted staffers and colleagues), about the disclosures until they are made public by other means. This is why you have a very small number of people who have known about it for several years but are just now talking about it.

      Furthermore, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) wrote a hand-written letter to Cheney years ago saying he objected to the program when it was disclosed to him. The letter was, of course, ignored by the Adminstration.

  53. Used by Chinese telcos, too by kmike · · Score: 2, Informative
    From http://www.narus.com/press/news/index.html
    Shanghai Telecom, which has 6.2 million landlines, plans to use Narus Inc.'s system to improve its ability to block "unauthorized" Internet calls that connect to its phone system, bypassing its toll structure.

    Great to know that the same Big Brother software is being used in USA and China. Invokes some warm fuzzy feeling of union...
  54. Re:Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by finkployd · · Score: 1

    Nothing would kickstart the federal government's long term goal of outlawing encryption into action again (remember Gore and the Clipper Chip?) faster than if more people started using it.

    Finkployd

  55. Re:Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of li by Mr.+Mindless · · Score: 2, Informative

    for those who may not scroll all the way down the customer profiles:

    Saudi Telecom, the preeminent telecommunications provider in the region, is employing the NarusInsight Discover Suite's VoIP detection application module to recover revenue that would otherwise be lost through unregulated VoIP traffic. Deployed by Narus Partner Giza Systems, NarusInsight captures and analyzes all VoIP traffic in the Saudi Telecom network. The VoIP detection module provides the real time information necessary for Saudi Telecom to block traffic destined for unregistered international VoIP gateways, thereby enforcing tariffed gateway regulations. NarusInsight is the leading choice for managing IP services in the Middle East largely because of its ability to successfully address critical business issues like VoIP detection in real-time.

    wow...

    --
    - MM
  56. Re:Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you notice how most of the companies on the list are using it to block VoIP traffic? I love the phrasing, that VoIP is "revenue leakage" that is somehow owed the company. It'd be a shame if people actually used the bandwidth that they buy for whatever they want, wouldn't it?

  57. Dupe by Psykosys · · Score: 1
    It's been known for over a month now that they're using Narus, and I don't see what the surprise is. Our government's turned increasingly towards privatization, and, given the state of much of the national security infrastructure, does not exactly have its shit together in terms of developing its own information technologies.

    Still, the amount of traffic these things can handle is pretty impressive.

  58. What George taketh, Bill giveth back? by Bob+4knee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So, all of those folks emailing around .doc files instead of pdfs and text are helping preserve our freedoms by making more bits for these guys to sift through and parse?

  59. Expectations by ulpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The law of the land (the USA anyway) says that if you have a conversation in a restaurant, there is no expectation of privacy. If you have a conversation at home, you do have an expectation of privacy, unless I consent to having my conversation recorded. As soon as you send/receive information in a public place there is no expectation of privacy, from a legal perspective.

    If you send/receive packets of data over a public connection, i.e. the internet, somehow you are expecting privacy? Hmmm. (notice the thoughtful pause) If you want or need privacy over a public medium, it seems simple to me. Use encryption.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate big government and big government's intrusion into my personal life. But, I also do not see my internet activity as a personal/private activity. There are just too many people involved. Webmasters see me visiting their site. My ISP knows where I go and what I do. So, I assume there will be others knowing that stuff too. There may be dozens of people 'knowing' what my internet activity looks like. No, I do not like big brother recording everything. It will, however take an amazing database to house all the data while waiting to be filtered and I am doubtful that the end result will accomplish what they are striving for.

  60. Article Is Spin, Of Course by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll


    First, the morons want everybody to believe that just because the Narus device can be used for traffic analysis - which is fundamentally a benign activity, unless it's used to deny somebody's traffic - which the telcos now want to do - that therefore the device is "harmless."

    Horseshit.

    This device as designed and built for spying, and was placed into telcos everywhere on the PRETEXT of being useful for traffic analysis. Then the NSA came calling and bulldozed the telcos into giving them everything that goes through it.

    The fact of the matters is that Narus the company is run by an "Israeli immigrant" and is financed by, among others, an Israeli investment company, one of the partners of whom happens to have worked for the Israeli government, including a stint developing optical devices for the Israeli military.

    And one of the directors on the board happens to be an "ex-" NSA guy (or as General Golgo said in the James Bond movie, "Nobody ever leaves the KGB!")

    The reality is that this device was designed and built for spying by the Mossad, in collaboration with the NSA, and then sold to the telcos under a pretext, which was then altered by arm-twisting or payment to the telcos to sell out the US Constitution.

    It's that simple.

    And every gutless moron posting here who says, "So what?" is a traitor to the United States and deserves to have his Internet porn recorded by the morons at NSA.

    Stupid suckers won't care until they're locking your ass up for even POSTING on /. - which they WILL get around to someday - after they have locked up all the anti-war protesters and the rest of the people who ARE patriots in this country instead of the "fake patriots" who are for a fascist state in this country.

    But then, since most of posters are /. are fake patriots, maybe they won't lock them up, after all. Most of the posters on ./ will do anything to bend over and take it from Bill Gates, so why not George Bush, too?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    1. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but you CAN leave the KGB or NSA or mafia, they all have early retirement programs

    2. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This device as designed and built for spying, and was placed into telcos everywhere on the PRETEXT of being useful for traffic analysis. Then the NSA came calling and bulldozed the telcos into giving them everything that goes through it.

      Well, sort of. This device is (I believe) a modified version of what the ISPs have been using for a long time to let them accurately bill people for the services they offer and negotiate peering agreements and QoS contracts.

      The fact of the matters is that Narus the company is run by an "Israeli immigrant" and is financed by, among others, an Israeli investment company, one of the partners of whom happens to have worked for the Israeli government, including a stint developing optical devices for the Israeli military.

      Whoa, whoa, whoa there cowboy! Now I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but you're making some pretty big and likely unwarranted leaps here. A whole lot of the traffic shaping, modeling, and balancing technology came out of Israel. The university there had a top notch network engineering program with a lot of smart people and patents coming out of it. Most moved to the US, where they could make money off of the .com boom and the aftermath. I know because I work with one of the professors who came over here to do that and let me tell you, he giggles way to much to be a mossad agent. I imagine anyone working in high-tech in Israel probably did some work for the military, especially if they were in academia.

      And one of the directors on the board happens to be an "ex-" NSA guy...

      So? I'm sure it helped them get the contract, and maybe helped them decide on the feature set. This is very common in the security industry. The company I work for has ex Microsoft people and ex-Cisco people. Surprise, surprise we sell to both of them. Another company we do a lot business with has ex Naval intelligence and NSA people. Guess who two of their big customers are? That is just the way the industry works. If you know people, you have an in and and often an advocate who helps to make the sale.

      The reality is that this device was designed and built for spying by the Mossad, in collaboration with the NSA, and then sold to the telcos under a pretext, which was then altered by arm-twisting or payment to the telcos to sell out the US Constitution.

      The reality is, some people found a niche and they filled it. This same type of functionality is needed for billing services and compliance with a number of government acts regarding lawful intercept, financing, security, and privacy assurance. Now maybe the NSA or AT&T requested added features to make this sort of activity easier. Maybe Narus came up with them on its own and sold them on it.

      I certainly think it is being misused and in a way that violates the founding principals of our government. That does not mean it is some grand conspiracy and running off half-cocked spouting this sort of unsupportable nonsense isn't helping anything. All it is doing is reducing the credibility of those who argue to have this sort of thing stopped and distracting people from the real issue.

      ..or is that your intention? You certainly do enough rabble rousing and insulting. If you really want to help, stick to the facts, not the wild speculation.

    3. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      Gotta say I completely disagree with the Troll rating. Thanks for the tidbits.... See, he lost me over Immigration a year and a half ago. Then news of this shite started coming out, and well. Futch 'em. I'm not voting for a single mofo encumbant this year, even if they are Republicans. If I have to vote against the party, so be it.

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
    4. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      1) It's not a "modified" version of anything. They built it for the specific purpose of traffic analysis which also happens to be what you use for wiretapping. Read their description of the product.

      2) I'm perfectly well aware that Israel has a high-tech industry. If you would look up the issue via Google, you will find that the Israeli military - including the Mossad - directly supports and cultivates that industry. They have a specific program to do that which has a specific name and is run by a specific member of the Israeli military. They do this because it has become obvious to them that the best way to spy on everybody is to make the hardware and software that every country uses to spy on everybody. I am basing this on the KNOWN FACT that an Israeli company formerly in charge of the DoJ's wiretapping efforts was CAUGHT providing wiretapping information to drug dealers in Los Angeles, and that the FBI was seriously concerned over how much access to wiretap info the company - and by extension, Israel - actually had.

      3) So the fact that an NSA man is running the company doesn't impress you? And to compare that with the ordinary fact that people from various tech companies serve on each other's board is disinguous at best. An NSA man is on that board NOT because of his technical expertise but because the NSA knows how valuable that hardware is for spying on people, Anybody who can't figure that out is a moron.

      4) I repeat, this device was built and sold for one purpose only - spying. Any additional revenue the company gets from using it for other purposes is a perk and a cover for its real purpose.

      5) You think it's being misused, but you don't think it's a "conspiracy". Gee, I guess you figure they just "misused" it by ACCIDENT?

      You're just another fool that bends over and takes it from the government because you don't have the balls to call them on it.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    5. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Stupid gutless /. punks on this site rate my post as "Troll" because they don't have the balls to stand up to the government which is wholesale spying on them. Why the EFF is trying to defend you ballless wonders is beyond me. Anything the government and Bill Gates does - in fact, anybody who has more money or power than you - is just fine by you lames.

      Let the government do what it wants to you. You're not Americans, you're punks. Brainless, ballless, juvenile punks. You bent over for Gates, you bent over for Bush, and you probably bend over for Oprah.

      Now rate THIS Troll, morons.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    6. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      It's not a "modified" version of anything. They built it for the specific purpose of traffic analysis which also happens to be what you use for wiretapping. Read their description of the product.

      Please, they started out building products that detected various layer 7 and 4 traffic types for purposes of network mapping and billing, before moving on to deeper packet inspection. They built upon this existing technology to create their inspection system. It is one small step from looking a packet and saying, "yup this is SMTP" to saying "yup, this is e-mail containing the phrase 'jihad'."

      I'm perfectly well aware that Israel has a high-tech industry.

      So what makes you think the NSA helped develop any of this then? All you have is speculation.

      An NSA man is on that board NOT because of his technical expertise but because the NSA knows how valuable that hardware is for spying on people, Anybody who can't figure that out is a moron.

      Please. Half of the people in government jobs eventually migrate to the public sector and make a lot more money. This is not because of their technical knowledge, it is because of their contacts and knowledge of the system. The main reason to hire someone from the NSA to work for you is they know all the people likely to be doing the buying. They golf together and they go to strip clubs together. They enable sales. It is about money, not a conspiracy to control the public company as some sort of front. If it was, you wouldn't know they were ever in the NSA.

      I repeat, this device was built and sold for one purpose only - spying. Any additional revenue the company gets from using it for other purposes is a perk and a cover for its real purpose.

      AT&T is one of how many of their customers? Most are legitimately using it for traffic analysis and billing. Claiming they get secret kickbacks from the NSA or they are secretly controlled by the NSA is fine, but if you don't have any evidence to support that, it is just conjecture. You don't know, and claiming you do just puts your credibility on the whole issue in the crapper. If you yell "fire" in a theater and want to save lives, don't follow it up with a rant about how it's all part of an MPAA plot to get you to pay twice. Otherwise, people will just think you're a nutjob.

      You think it's being misused, but you don't think it's a "conspiracy". Gee, I guess you figure they just "misused" it by ACCIDENT?

      No, I think the NSA knew full well what it was doing. I think Narus considered the NSA as a potential source of revenue when they were allocating their engineering effort. I don't, however, see as any evidence they had any motivation other than legitimate profit in building it. Why should the NSA be secretly involved? They can get the same results by just letting the market supply them with tools and misusing them.

      You're just another fool that bends over and takes it from the government because you don't have the balls to call them on it.

      You're just another fool that thinks a persuasive argument unnecessarily includes wild conjecture and unsupported accusations. You're also the kind of fool who will do more harm to curbing government abuses than good, by being so irrational and vitriolic that no one wants to be associated with you or any cause you are advocating. Your rabid and wild advocacy for this issue is enough to make some people assume the government did nothing wrong, simply because they will assume all proof to the contrary came from "some wackjob conspiracy nut" like yourself. Maybe there is a conspiracy, but if you don't have any evidence of it, shut the hell up already and stick to the real, proven issue.

    7. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      You've haven't proved anything but what a sucker you are.

      I don't need "evidence", as you put it - I need only look at what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

      You can't see anything because you don't want to see it.

      It's that simple.

      It's pointless discussing it with you for the simple reason that you're a sucker.

      As more and more of the facts come out, eventually it will be clear what really happened. It may take another ten years, but eventually someone like Bamford will write a book about it and you'll look like an idiot for believing the press releases and corporate spin.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:Article Is Spin, Of Course by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I don't need "evidence", as you put it - I need only look at what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

      And this exactly what makes you lack credibility and more of a liability than an asset for affecting change in the government on this issue. A rational person makes decisions based upon facts and admits they don't know when they have no facts. There is no reason to make assertions about what you don't know to convey to others what happened that is unethical, un-American, and corrupt here. Still you insist on making those assertions and demonstrating your irrationality.

      It may take another ten years, but eventually someone like Bamford will write a book about it and you'll look like an idiot for believing the press releases and corporate spin.

      No one ever looks like an idiot for admitting they don't know the facts of something they have no way of obtaining facts about. Maybe there is some grand conspiracy, maybe there isn't. It seems far-fetched to me, since there is no motive in this case. In any case, right now I look and am a rational person discussing facts. You seem to be an irrational person spouting conjecture with nothing to back it up. I can educate people and motivate them to press for reform. You can make them look for an excuse to be elsewhere and believe that anyone discussing the issue is some wacko. Which of us is of more benefit to society?

  61. Fear by vodkamattvt · · Score: 2, Informative
    I dont know what I fear more ... the increasingly easy way any (evil) corporation can compile all my communications or the idea that the government can. I think its pretty clear that as technology gets more advanced, so do privacy concerns.

    I think the most frightening part is that when I talk to my more conservative family members and most people who only casually know about these issues or politics, they see NOTHING wrong with everyone and their brother recording all the information they can on them and their family/friends. Their reasoning .. I have nothing to hide, why should I care? It is catching the "evil dooers".

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

  62. By the way by TCM · · Score: 1

    "Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo in this order!"

    At which point are you guys now? I'd say it's already past the third, no?

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  63. has anyone considered? by atarione · · Score: 1

    maybe the real terrorists have just said FUCK it!!!

    and are sending their communications on tourist postcards with special codes

    or sneaker netting it

    meanwhile the NSA now knows I have a strange fixation on Japanese upskirt sites....OH WAIT!!!!

    seriously how much more spying on the American people do we have to see, before we realize something is seriously F_cked in the land of free and home of the brave?

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
    1. Re:has anyone considered? by BigMattyC · · Score: 1
      meanwhile the NSA now knows I have a strange fixation on Japanese upskirt sites....OH WAIT!!!!
      Strange?
    2. Re:has anyone considered? by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 1

      More serious question is how much more spying do we take before even a token percentage of the population resolves to do something about it. The legal system isn't gonna get it done, much as the activities of the EFF are admirable, someone has to do something the government can't ignore. Any ideas? (besides the retarded crap about flooding the net for no ones gain, remember, this is at least somewhat targetted and all that would do would be make things difficult for us, not the government)

  64. Ancient News, and more news by btarval · · Score: 1
    "Does it make anybody else nervous that there is a market for these products? "off the shelf" products that can scale to this degree?"

    Of course there's a market for this. Where have you been? Universities and Companies have been rolling these things out to keep an eye on their networks for a while now. And this has been predicted for a long time before that.

    Here's another product which basically does the same thing

    You couple this, along with lots of cheap SATA storage on a Hypertransport Bus, and you're looking at storing network information for at least months, possibly years. At the rate technology is going, it will only get easier to store all of a student/employee's network connectivity for forever.

    It looks like the tinfoil hat crowd was right all along. Clearly it's time to wake up and become aware of this stuff, as it's only going to become more ubiquitous.

    If you're looking for a defense, the only complete one is Tor .

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
  65. Re:So Right! by mpapet · · Score: 1

    You my friend, have brightened my day.

    What a wonderful, thought provoking premise.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  66. Re:Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of li by Homology · · Score: 1

    Saudi Arabia is ruled by one of the most repressive regimes on this planet, so of course they want to spy on their citizens. Incidentally, the House of Saud is on very chummy terms with the Bushes.

  67. I'm sticking with soap by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot, so I'm pretty sure that the correct answer is still soap. If we are just ranting, we are on the soap box. Besides, SOAP is the only one that is a web protocol.

    --
    Think global, act loco
  68. Once again - we need mandatory encryption... by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    If all data were sent encrypted, this would not be a problem - it would be just like the US postal mail today - too much effort to try and intercept /all/ mail - but with enough effort and suspicion, you can still get at /some/ mail.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  69. Re:Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    A few years back a mailing list on a controversial topic was hosted on one of my home site's computers.

    I made it a rule that NO encrypted traffic would run through that site - and no illegal activity (including confessions of wrongdoing) would be allowed on the mailing list. (Had to shut it down for a few days once to drive that point home.)

    Reason?

    If the traffic was in the clear, should the cops become suspicious they could tap it and check. And they'd prefer to do that, since it would avoid tipping off the hypothetical bad guys and let them collect more information and evidence.

    If the traffic was encrypted they couldn't tap it effectively. But if they could get a warrant to tap the line they could easily get a warrant to break in, sieze the computer, and anything else they could find. Then they could examine any in-the-clear archives of the list on the computer - which they would expect they might find - or hunt down any keying information that might be stored, at their leisure. And, having established probable cause for the initial search, they could use anything ELSE they found as evidence, even if it was unrelated to the original search. Meanwhile they'd have shut down the "suspect operation" and greatly inconvenienced its operators.

    (Since then the mailing list has been replaced by a successor hosted elswhere by others. I still don't encrypt my email in general. But now I'm free to use SSH or VPN to connect to my employer's machines - along with all the other employees, since it's company policy.)

    Using encryption to "seal" envelopes is a good idea - if lots of people do it. The more it's used on ordinary stuff, the less it serves as a flag that there's something interesting behind it. But even if it's common you should be aware of the potential downsides and take them into account when deciding whether to encrypt.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  70. You can always use unbreakable encryption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it's not practical for everyday use, but there is one type of encryption that's truly unbreakable: the One Time Pad.

            http://www.scubaninja.com/code/c/xor/

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_time_pad

    Of course, this doesn't protect you from a bunch of guys with guns that want your key...

  71. Re:Well, I feel better now! Not. by kruzty1x · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's reassuring that we're being spied on with readily available tools. Does this mean it's a good thing to have men in black looking through your windows and following you wherever you go? I mean if going low rent to troll through data isn't so bad why not boost employment and have a schmoe on every corner? Heck, some in congress proposed giving us a rebate check to help with our fuel bills--why not have an incentive program that gives us cash for every fellow citizen we turn in? The streets would be filled with low tech trolls. We'd become an ubermass of trolls, no one would be safe. Taking a crap in private would become a thing of the past. In fact, we'd all just leave our doors and shades open so as not to provoke the suspicion of our peers. Not only that, but we'd be using our phones to report terrorist activity so that the various phone companies who were aiding in the low pro snooping to begin with would now rake in mega bucks from all those calls from the patriotic. In no time the world would be so much safer, so much more open and honest. Eventually we'd realise the need for spying and war and greed, etc is asinine. We'd all realise the futility of the system as it had come to be and we'd yearn to rid our utopia of the vermin who created this monstrosity to begin with. The Evil would be exposed and it's power would dwindle to nothing more than the power of a scary story or an urban legend. Then we'd all just laugh and laugh at the thought that we ever let such bizarre, insane, paranoid creatures rule our lives. How droll it would seem, indeed, that we who are free to think our thoughts and live our lives should have ever allowed ourselves to think this system was ever meant to help us and not just feed the insanity of the powers that were. The Evil would prove to be it's own worst enemy. From corrupt, greedy, power mad monsters would arise the tools for their own demise. Indeed, it would be us who proved the most powerful net monitoring tool. Hah!

    Then one day Santa Claus gave everyone the clap and we all got real sick and died.

    The End.

  72. Re:Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog?

  73. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am suspecting that the ISPs who INSISTS the newbie/uninformed windoze users and Mac users install that ISPs crackware CD masquerading as an 'experience enhancing/improving' software tool is really just a Trojan to facilitate later offline decryption.

    Just call them up. Make up your own scenarios. But, if LINUX users DON'T need the damned CD, why do windoze and Mac users need it. If you posit that you rebuild your machine every 6 weeks and you always lose your ISPs disk, or broke it by mistake, do you still need it? some of them will say, well, no, not ALWAYS, or no you don't NEED it...

    Why is there no lobby against this bald-face lying on the part of ISPs?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  74. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not as absurb as you want it to be mate. Some of the leading cases in US software-copyright come to the conclusion that the legal exemption to have a second, personal copy of copyrighted software (ie, "backup exemption) is only necessary because the computer "copies" the executable code into memory from the hard drive when it runs. You'd have the original software on the hard drive and an illegal "copy" in memory, if not for the exemption.

    My first reaction was, "You've got to be farking kidding me."

    Judges don't understand technology.

  75. Confused ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think all the traffic flowing through the internet backbones means what you think it means..!?!

    Can you fathom the information processing requirements necessary to split an OC-192 circuit ,and translate it back to a USEABLE, SEARCHABLE, ARCHIVABLE database format in REAL-TIME?? Do you know what an OC-192 is???

    Now put that on a scale for every major NODE in the country, on every Large Bandwidth provider in the U.S.

    DO YOU GET IT YET??? This is no small operation, and for you to dismiss it as another company tossing some monitoring equipment onto their network shows,
    a) your LACK of networking knowledge, and
    b) that you would just assume allow such an operation to proceed regardless of what Constitutional foundations its shattering

    I pity you sir ......

  76. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Was so heavy into my rant that I forgot to include my other two suspicions:

    -- the ISPs are getting marketing dollars by deploying the disks, and when each one is installed, it calls back to mshaft to verify that the ISP is entitled to marketing dollars, which then enables mshaft to bolster their OS useage counts (which can be negated or deflated when users successfully log in without the disk ever being installed, which means an employee NOT pushing the disk installation might lose commissions or deprive the ISP of marketing dollars....)

    or,

    -- the ISPs use the disk to gain access to unwary users' machines, and then use the validated information or sell pieces or all of the information (maybe de-identified?) to "third party partners" and such

    As for those damned disks, I say if you SHIP the modem to the subscriber, and it is logically assumed there is no cloning of the MAC address, and the machine is directly connected to the C/M or DSL modem, then WHY WHY WHY on Earth is it a **MUST** that the end user install that disk? WHY?

    I guess gates and henchmen are going to put a full-on press against the ISP, now, or again... Sounds like ripe anti-trust/anti-competitive territory.

    US Government: This is MORE fodder for you in your quest to put a clamp in ms ass. Use this for ALL it's worth!

    Until Linux/Open Source is a genuine WMD or bigger threat to the world than windoze is, I will NOT give up my OS of choice, and nor should any other individual, company, or government....

    (There are SOME people who think I'm anti-government, that I'm an evil threat; far from it. I say what I think is right, and I reFUSE to suffer political bullshit just because some politico is afraid of losing eminence or turf or whatever. I call it like I see it. I am anti-effing-stupid-government, not anti-government. But, I suppose someone will try to explain that the two distinctions are by definition functionally equal and therefore I am still "totally" anti-government. WHEW!!!!)

    Now, where o-h hwhere are those rit, lith, umm, chlo, umm.... PILLS???!!!!

    adjusts EM-shielded strontium-coated tin foil hat...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  77. its not about how but why!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What matters is not HOW at&t and friends are monitoring traffic with NSA, but WHY do it at all.

    Monitoring net traffic couldnt be easier for government just like it is easy for netizens to access passwordless government computers.

    In China the NSA would operate without questions but this is the USA for heavens sake!!

    NSA needs to solve issues like who was really behind 911. Once citizens wipe away doubts that 911 was carried out by...ahm...you know who, then we will roll over and get screwed with wiretaps.

  78. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am suspecting that the ISPs who INSISTS the newbie/uninformed windoze users and Mac users install that ISPs crackware CD masquerading as an 'experience enhancing/improving' software tool is really just a Trojan to facilitate later offline decryption.

    I seriously doubt this, but it is easy enough to find out. Make a vm of windows and save it. Install the software save it. Take a look at the bits and figure out what has changed. Has it touched any of the encryption libraries or programs? Just copy them off and checksum them even.

    But, if LINUX users DON'T need the damned CD, why do windoze and Mac users need it.

    They don't of course. Most of those CDs just run a script, some are even easy to look at. In fact, the one time I had to setup a mac for a cable modem I just looked at their script, grabbed the DNS server, mail server, and netmask, etc. from it and input them by hand in my config. It worked just fine. The reason they tell you have to run the CD is because they hire support moneys working minimum wage to read a script into the phone when you call. It is easier for them to tell you to double click a script then walk you through making manual configuration changes.

  79. Symantic Traffic Analysis by CFrankBernard · · Score: 1

    Could it be...SymAntic Traffic ANalysis?

  80. That's why ATT DSL is soooo slow ! by loolgeek · · Score: 1

    Now I understand why ATT refuses to use ADSL2+ (24mb/sec downstream). It would be too much data to collect...

  81. Bush Signed Executive Order Allowing Telcos To Lie by Lokni · · Score: 3, Informative

    You guys might want to check this out: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/new-executive- order/ Bush has signed an executive order that allows the Telcos to lie on their financial statements. It would be almost impossible to prove these programs existed without access to classified information. Another way to prove them, however, would be to detail how much money the telcos receive from the federal government. They are required to report this information to the SEC beecause they are publically traded companies. Bush has signed an order that allows them to violate securities law. Worse off, he did this just a few days preceeding the USA Today article which implies that they had notice ahead of time that they were about to be exposed. We are in for a world of hurt people. Say bye bye to the United States of America as we know it. This is fascism by definition.

  82. Re:Well, I feel better now! Not. QWZX by esper · · Score: 1

    Right or wrong, abortion is legal in (most of) the U.S. and the government should not take any action against those who seek to undertake acts which are legal.

  83. The *real* AT&T slogan by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their VOIP calls.

    AT&T. Your world, delivered.

    AT&T. Your world, delivered to the NSA.

    Fixed that for you. ;)

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  84. Re:Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of li by Mr.+Mindless · · Score: 1

    And I'm sure the ability to share information on VOIP usage and other "tiered internet" buzz-uses appealed to the telcos when aproached about installing this equipment. There has to be a profit angle for the telcos to have agreed to this deployment...

    --
    - MM
  85. How long... by natx808 · · Score: 1

    How long until the government mandates installation of their sniffers at every google pop, every isp, every telco. How soon until the NSA in realtime knows that someone is searching google for something terrorist related. And it doens't matter if we petition our congress to make laws preventing the invasion of privacy, seeing as the president can choose what laws he wants to follow and which ones he wants to break.

    1. Re:How long... by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 1

      There are messages that the President can't avoid, not every change happens because a lawmaker initiates it, sometimes it is the publics responsibility.

  86. Re:Bush Signed Executive Order Allowing Telcos To by LifeNLiberty · · Score: 1

    We should learn from the examples of fascist countries that've come before and do something about it before these people start taking away liberties that affect us directly, like life.

  87. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, you are both wrong, you have no idea how far down the rabbit hole we already are. These disks contain tiny nanomachines that embed themselves in your skin and change your DNA so that you will only bear Republican children. Of course, the Republicans aren't the Final Masters here, they are nothing more than patsies of the Rand Corporation, who are of course controlled by the Boy Scouts of America, who are under the dominion of the Reverse Vampires. We're through the looking glass, people.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  88. PPPoE is annoying, but so is Bogus FUD by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Most of the ISP installation disks out there are installing PPPoE on their victims\\\\\\customers and also including versions of IE with logo-branded decorations on them. PPPoE is an ugly-hack protocol that makes it easier for ISPs to force end users to log in (and therefore makes it easier to block customers who aren't paying their bills and do more traffic accounting or rate-limiting.) I forget if MCI or UUNET were the originators of it, but a number of other ISPs have picked it up. DSL is really ATM underneath, so you can simply run IP native over Layer 2, but their are ISPs who like the extra control, or who don't want to buy ATM all the way back to their head end, so they use PPPoE instead. (My home DSL is from Sonic.net, who are using SBC for the Layer 2 connectivity, and they run native, and tell you NOT to install the PPPoE setup disk.)

    But there's no reason to accuse them of bugging you or other bogus FUD just because they want PPPoE. Linux doesn't need the disk because it already has PPPoE drivers available - Windows doesn't (or at least didn't), and Linux users can be trusted to type in the configuration commands correctly or hack them until they're working. There probably are some ISPs that like to include spyware, but for most of them it's just making sure that their branding is out there and making sure that the kinds of users who can't get the coffee-cup holder on their PC to stop auto-ejecting at 12:00 do still get connected. Also, except for encrypted payload, the ISPs can see everything from their end of the connection anyway.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:PPPoE is annoying, but so is Bogus FUD by Tim+Doran · · Score: 1

      Agreed, PPPoE is an ugly hack. But I think its origin lies in telcos' desire to use existing dial-based billing systems for broadband customers rather than develop new billing interfaces.

      Personally I think they should have bitten the bullet up front. Now they're stuck with this crappy protocol.

  89. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

  90. US mail, by a_greer2005 · · Score: 1

    I can send a letter through the US Mail, if anyone but the resipiant opens it, they are a federal criminal.

    1. Re:US mail, by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you send a postcard I'll guarantee EVERYONE along the route reads it.

  91. 9/11 by cooldemo · · Score: 1

    I think you might wanna wath this movie http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-202332089 0224991194

  92. Re:Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of li by PHPfanboy · · Score: 1

    Let's imagine I'm in charge of internet marketing at a large multinational company. How can I get my hands on some of those lovely Narus logs? That would be a real Google killer.

    --
    29 mpg. YMMV.
  93. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by Sancho · · Score: 1

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained through ignorance/stupidity. Or the bottom line.

    The reason they want those CDs installed is to make sure your computer is set up "the right way" to minimize technical support calls. And once tech support is needed, they know that the computer is in a specific configuration and it's easier to troubleshoot. It's really that easy. If you don't believe it, put a bridge between the computer and the modem and capture the traffic.

  94. Telcos Authorized to Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/17050 6_b_Memorandum.htm

    "Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))"

  95. Re:Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Sure they could break one million messages. If they can break one, they can break a million of them.... and, incidentally, if they are only interested in YOUR emails, the don't have to break one million emails... just your few dozen.

    And by the way... you are too sleeping with your Mom no matter what you claim. ;-)

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  96. Just remember ... by jonathan_95060 · · Score: 1

    "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."

  97. Off the shelf actually hurting NSA? by swb · · Score: 1

    There was a blurb on the news about the NSA guy who wants to head the CIA. In adding up his negatives they said that he was behind to the push to get the NSA to adopt off-the-shelf technology instead of relying on home grown, which they said had been a major failure for the NSA, costing it as much or more than in-house stuff and providing lesser capabilities.

    I wonder if this product is one of the off-the-shelf wins or losses?

    For all of its capabilities, it seems unlikely it can break even DES in real time, and would it be able to recognize, say, an SSH session tunneled via legitimate HTTP packets (not just SSH on port 80, but SSH embedded in HTTP packets)? I've used a Packeteer that was great at "seeing" layer 4/5 traffic regardless of port, but at a certain level of layering you don't really know what you've got.

  98. Re:Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No! He said he was sleeping with YOUR mom, you insensitive clod.

  99. Re:Narus customer touting -- AT&T at top of li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, if by "most" you mean "three", and if by "block" you mean "monitor, detect, and in some cases, block", sure.

    Jesus fucking Christ, where did you learn to read?

  100. collecting data is easy, making use of it is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As anyone who has ever run an intrusion detection system can tell you, collecting data is easy. Making productive use of it in a timely manner is not a trivial task that still has to be performed by humans. The strain on the NSA's human analysts that these sorts of systems must surely create makes me doubt that anything timely will be coming out from this system. These sorts of systems are quite useful to help understand what happened days, weeks or months ago. However, putting this sort of system to use in a real time way will require an army of analysts which one can not merely conjured up.

  101. Nonsense! TIA is operated against the law. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is oversight. Congressional committees were informed years ago. However election season is upon us so there is a lot of fake outrage and posing for the cameras and microphones going on.

    When informed of Total Information Awareness, Congress loudly and firmly killed it, but the NSA did it anyway in secret.

    This is a scandal of first order. The goal is unconstitutional, the attitude is nuamerican and the means are illegal. This is the kind of shit we fought the Cold War to avoid. I'm furious and you should be too.

    As the American Taliban tightens it's grip on your reading, conversations and whereabouts, the terrorists win. A few bandits flying into buildings, even the destruction of an entire American city is not an excuse to destroy the things this country stands for. A few more slips down the slope and you wont be able to tell the difference between the Axis of Evil and home.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  102. Re:Nonsense! TIA is operated against the law. by willyhill · · Score: 0
    As the American Taliban tightens it's grip on your reading

    Uh... what?

    --
    The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
  103. What horrible people. The problem with geeks... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Is that we've been picked on in our lives and now we develope these horrible tools to get back at the world just cause we can, and it can be sold for lots of money to power hungry old people with visions of world domination.

    See... be nice to the weird kid folks...

    seriously, why do people create tools like this? Is there really a market for it? Who is this market? Law enforcement perhaps, but what right do they have to log everyones doing? We're private citizens, so why is company allowed to develope such spying tools? Isnt this the same as spyware and trojans? Whats the difference between this and a root kit? In the big picture, they are still spying on us, and these are citizen companies making tools to do this. Thats no different than some kid making a trojan to steal info from zombie computres. Its illegal in my eyes.

    Why is a company allowed to do this and a teenager with his latest worm/keylogger not?

    Their entire company is based on breaking the law, isnt it?

    What happened to privacy?

    Oh its the net, we're not guarranteed privacy cause its public? bah. Dangerouns line to walk... especially when they're hell bend on making encryption illegal. What privacy will we be allowed to have on the net?

    Funny how i said "what privacy will we be allowed to have..."

    1. Re:What horrible people. The problem with geeks... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      seriously, why do people create tools like this?

      A few salient points:
        - Just because you find the idea abhorrent doesn't mean everyone else does.
        - There are a lot of people who develop systems in order to feed their family, not to further their own personal views.
        - It's a tool. I can think of several perfectly legal uses which I consider reasonable (monitoring traffic for billing purposes, enforcing IT security policy). Should the tool cease to exist because it has uses I consider unreasonable? If that's the case, the knife I used to prepare dinner last night should probably be outlawed to.

  104. Re:Encryption? Why decrypt later? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    "who are under the dominion of the Reverse Vampires"

    The vampires that love sunlight... and come from Tansylvania?

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  105. These are the tools or databases-Data Piling. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What is Aurora?
    Aurora is a network-security database that had been used to store Internet traffic data since approximately 2003. The Aurora database contains huge amounts of data acquired by firewalls, routers, honeypots and other devices on AT&T's global IP (Internet Protocol) network and other networks connected to AT&T's network."

    Quick! Someone get Google on the phone.

  106. Re:Can reconstruct emails? Not this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about we fake the encryptions by sending a pseudo random stream of data (say from Setti@home or one of those protein or DNA sequence) and let them waste time trying to decrypt that...

    -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

    aiunw3r9unwoif98wrjoiwrj982q3ruj892w4rj98wfj98wrj9 8wjf9saenf9w
    3w988jwa4erj80(*#@UR*&Yrt0iq32iujk80qwdfj089q3r980 qrji&Y*$NFsr
    ewf9k90we4rkj8w34tj3e9w8gj

    -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

  107. Re:Nonsense! TIA is operated against the law. by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    In times of war investigatory and related power have always increased. However the American people only allow this during the emergency, Once the emergency is over things return to normal. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, ... they all did things that would only be tolerated during war. The same thing is happening today. Part of what makes America great is that we are able to take powerful measures when necessary but it's just temporary. The power of checks and balances is not that it prevents excess, it is that it corrects excesses over time. In short, the sky is not falling.

    To prevent any nonsense about the politicians being in control, the politician won't allow the people to [blah blah]. That is bunk. The people are firmly in control. Politicians only get away with what we *allow* them to get away with. There is a line that when crossed will annoy people enough to go to the polls and vote. Much of the normal idiocy we see our politicians commit falls short of that line. The problem is not really with the politicians, it is with where we place that line. However the fact remains that we place the line, we vote the idiots in or out of office.

    By the way, you blew all credibility when you stated a willingness to accept the loss of a city rather than allow, in a time of war, such things as analysis of telephone and internet traffic, etc. Even if we take it further than that, scanning/listening for keywords and starting to record on a "hit", distasteful but in a time of war, especially in the modern technological context, it is probably a good idea. Now in a time of peace things are very different. Again, America has a pretty good track record of undoing the excesses that were necessary during emergencies. The only excesses that are allowed are the ones we tolerate.

  108. What war? by twitter · · Score: 1
    In times of war investigatory and related power have always increased. However the American people only allow this during the emergency, Once the emergency is over things return to normal. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, ... they all did things that would only be tolerated during war.

    If we are at war now, we will never be at peace.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  109. UUCP by kevinbr · · Score: 1

    Perhaps!we!need!to!rebuild!a!UUCP!dialup!network.

  110. Could the government log all postal activity? by martyb · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You wouldn't let a government agent swing by every morning and look at all the mailing addresses on letters going to/from your house, why the hell would you let them do the same to your phone records?

    This got me thinking... according to this link: Handwritten address interpretation :

    Handwritten address interpretation research began at CEDAR in 1987 through funding from the United States Postal Service (USPS). The objective was to automate mail sorting through a system that could read a handwritten street address and ZIP code and encode each envelope with the destination address for machine sorting.

    This research ultimately led to the development and deployment of system that automates mail sorting through image analysis, digit recognition, word recognition, postal directory lookup, and a barcode assignment that designates the destination address. Since field-testing began in 1996, the Handwritten Address Interpretation System (HWAI) has been implemented at all USPS mail processing centers.

    (emphasis mine.)

    So, it's only a small step to record all that metadata for every letter sent within the USA. Just have postmasters general submit the day's scan logs to the gov't for review for possible terrorist links, and, by the way, archive all th information received. This information could include:

    • Who received mail.
    • Who sent it (from the return address).
    • When it was sent.
    • How much it weighed.
    • How urgently it was sent (overnight, first class, parcel post, etc.)

    So, maybe you were just joking, but from what I've seen lately, I'd have to suspect that this may already in place... can anyone corroborate this?

    1. Re:Could the government log all postal activity? by kabz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sweet! I never put a return address on anything. In your face NSA !!

      --
      -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
    2. Re:Could the government log all postal activity? by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wow, scary. I knew that most of the mail system had this kind of automation but I failed to put 2 and 2 together on it. I'm willing to bet that this information is probably already being collected and mined according to the points you outlined, especially after the anthrax scare in 2001. (BTW: wtf ever happened to that? IIRC no one was ever caught and it sort of just fell off the public radar, but I don't think there's been closure on that act of terrorism that could in theory happen again, even with whatever safeguards are in place.)

      My point about the mail was more of an argument to give to people who think that the NSA having all their phone logs w/o a warrant is OK. I'm willing to bet that once they hear the parallel idea of a physical agent showing up daily and writing down their mail addressing info in a log all of a sudden a light will go on - gee maybe this is a bit invasive. People need to be change their thinking from "This is ok by me because I have done nothing wrong" TO "Why am I being searched/tracked when I have done nothing wrong?"

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  111. The real worry is that someone found out by pesky25 · · Score: 1

    If anyone thinks that gov'ts don't spy and that the right guaranteed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights are always upheld you probably believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Part of living in a big, sometimes dangerous world full of different kinds of people, is that gov'ts spy and break laws. I know that, I just don't want to see it. Just like hot dogs, I love them but I don't want to see them made.

    The real worry is that the NSA were so sloppy or lazy or just didn't care enough to hide what they were doing. The NSA is in the spy and secrets biz. If some sys admin at the phone company can out a NSA mission, then those agents need to be transfered to a listening station in the arctic circle.

  112. For me, it's Ethereal. by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    When I switched from a D-Link router to a Linksys, I misspelt my PPPoE password by one letter.  I tried hacking the D-Link config file but no luck - unmasking the password fields on the browser didn't reveal anything either.  Tutorials on the net said I needed 2 computers to monitor the traffic between the router and the DSL modem.

    After experimenting for a while, I started a PPPoE and a CHAP server on my computer, fired up Ethereal, connected it to the WAN port on my D-Link, and resetted the D-Link.  Presto, login and password in plaintext.  Saved me a LOT of headache going through customer service.

  113. DOD/DARPA by ph4s3 · · Score: 1

    Why is anyone shocked that the internet is under surveilance? It originated as a DOD project. It's just coming full circle back to where it began.

  114. Time to start encrypting everything by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    I think it is time to start a movement to build encryption into all communications on the internet as a default user option.

    Us geeks need to promote the use of web anonymizers through the use of
    a easy net scape plug-in and e-mail encryption by writing plug-in / managers for standard clients including outlook.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  115. Re:Bush Signed Executive Order Allowing Telcos To by palantir0 · · Score: 1

    No need really. Once we start a good ole nuke exchange, you won't really care. :) WW3...it will be over in a snap. Cheers