Slashdot Mirror
Crashing the Wiretapper's Ball
An anonymous reader writes "Wired is running an article with some great investigative journalism. Writer Thomas Green snuck into the ISS World Conference, a trade show featuring communications-tapping equipment and normally a press-free event. There, he got some very interesting quotes from the attendees." From the article: "You really need to educate yourself ... Do you think this stuff doesn't happen in the West? Let me tell you something. I sell this equipment all over the world, especially in the Middle East. I deal with buyers from Qatar, and I get more concern about proper legal procedure from them than I get in the USA."
Because in places like that you can lose body parts for illegal stuff!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
When was the last time a major newspaper did real investingation? I mean, I always read about the world they want us to hear about and they never go into details on how our civil liberaties and the constution are essentially being used a toliet house by the people in Washington. It's shocking and disturbing to see how far our nation has fallen in the last couple of years.
This signature was left intentionally blank.
In a lot of states, only one side of a phone conversation needs to agree to a recording for it to be legal. If you call me and I agree that I can record our conversation, it is legal.
Before anyone jumps in and stirs the political pot, remember it is not only governmental use of "wiretapping" that you are subject to. Companies do too, and some of them are nice enough to tell you "This call may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes"
Big bad big brother is watching, but not always from D.C.
I wonder if he got those quotes from bugs he planted on people.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
If they're asking questions about legal procedure at all, it's probably a sign that this is a civilian buyer; most government officials already know! (Whether they care...well, that's a different matter.) I don't think that this is about the government, really. Of course, knowing that private citizens and corporations are overseeing you without regard for legal procedure isn't much more comforting, especially since the government is probably looking anyway...
Actual link to first page here.
from the article "in the end, all this surveillance gear and attendant hype becomes meaningless with simple precautions like encrypted VOIP, a good implementation of virtual private networks, and proxies and SSH for web surfing, IM, internet relay chat, webmail and the like" don't you ever watch Mr. Bauer ?
The restrictions on civilians attending the law enforcement agency sessions were, I gather, a cheap marketing gesture to justify their $6,500-per-head entrance fee with suggestions of secret information that the average network-savvy geek wouldn't have known.
Money is usually the simplest explanation.
Help kill corporate productivity!
"This is powerful stuff. In the wrong hands, it could ruin political opponents; it could make the state's power impossible to challenge. The state would know basically everything. People would be getting rounded up for thought crimes."
... and progressed past just a thought?
Is is really a though crime if you say it out loud? Hasn't it become spoken words then
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It might not be (just) about the government. If the government uses it and somebody finds out big deal - a couple talk show hosts, news for about 3 days and its forgoten. Totalitarian regimes are _far_ better in hiding that stuff from the people anyways. So they might not worry that much. Or if they worry is more likely because of international laws, so they dont get kicked in the butt for another reason. Individual companies, people - fuggedabouthit. If its illegal they'll kill you or lock you up with a daily 3 to 5 beating for the rest of your life. Hence the concerns.
Western governments end up in the news, and western individuals in the court for a little bit of handslapping. One might pay a fine and get away with it, or go to probation etc... Hence the ignorance for the legal stuff.
This guy did what a real reporter is supposed to do, and reported on his findings. Why the hell are "reputable" news agencies still around if all they feed us is PC garbage approved by those with an agenda?
On another note,
[quote]The salesman concluded with a hearty recap. "I'm glad we had the chance to meet in person; this is not a conversation I'd want to have on the phone, for obvious reasons," he roared. Everyone laughed heartily.[/quote]
"Do you think for a minute that Bush would let legal issues stop him from doing surveillance? He's got to prevent a terrorist attack that everyone knows is coming. He'll do absolutely anything he thinks is going to work. And so would you."
And don't think for even one minute that whoever succeeds Bush will change anything about this.
Damn leftists always trying to do their best to destroy our soldiers and law enforcement officers abilities to do any useful job so that the left can live in their little hippy-vile if-it-feels-good-do-it state. If I had my way - and luckily for me I do since the GOP is in power, I would have cut through all this red tape decades ago. If the spy services cant spy then what exactly can they do? The same goes for the commercial sector - what are companies supposed to do if they cant sell your personal information? I've heard that in the EU they have it even worse with this 'Data Protection' rubbish where organisations have to actually publically admit what information they are capturing and have to keep it secure, not give it out without permission and even allow the individual to see any and all information they have on them! Of course I would expect that from a socialist/communist state like the EU but it seems like the US is heading the same way. Spying on people does no harm - especially if you put it next to some of the other things our boys can do with regards to extracting information, spying is just harmless and very useful. The Lord will punish the leftists who perverted the course of justice.
Wow being Republican is easy, i think the general rule is that anything like privacy, free speech and peace you just have to pretend its not important while anything to do with sex, sexual equality, sex on tv, sex in peoples private lives etc is a matter of life or death.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Interesting and insightful article as much for it's lack of relevations as for it's anecdotes. No insight into new spy capability or new, deceptive uses outside of casual observations of the skin color and accents of the attendees.
Of course, that's what one expects from semi-public conferences - lots of voyeurs, vague references, and (mostly) marketing crap. Real spook conferences will be classified and there's no way in hell reporters can get in there.
They probably keep out the press more to preserve their image of secrecy and semi-legitimacy than because they're actually concerned about privacy. After all, who wouldn't want to attend a 'secret' conference where the press if forbidden to attend. Wow! That's sounds cool and I don't even care what they're selling.
That's the decoy conference.
Bilderberg think-tank conference in Ottawa this June is where the real stuff happens.
I have no idea who is attending and what goes on in there... which is precisely why it worries me.
It's no news that the most repressive regimes usually also has the citizens that are most interested in their freedom. Old news.
It's also sad (and true) that people who fear their government (read: KNOW their government works AGAINST their interests) are more aware that tapping happens, and that it does have quite BAD consequences.
Here, in the "free" world (I know, I use quotation marks very liberally, but these fit like none I've ever used before), people are still on the "you don't do anything bad, you don't have to fear" attitude. This is very different in countries that either have or used to have very tough restrictions on their freedoms. When you talk to someone from the former East Block, you'll probably get very different responses when it comes to issues like this.
They're also smart enough to question pretty much everything they read. They're used to lying newspapers and TV stations. That's something we should pick up soon, I'd say.
So of course the awareness about wiretapping and snooping is by a magnitude higher in countries where people expect their government to pursue interests that are diametrally different from their own.
Actually, that's the case with every person, as far as I can judge. Over here, in the "free" world, too many still believe the government works in their favor.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Attitudes like this guy's are dangerous. It's the "if you don't have anything to hide why are you objecting?" and the "these guys just make the product" sentiments that just bury us deeper and deeper.
Ultimately, the government derives its mandate from the people, so they do answer to us. He's forgotten it, and so has every single politician and bureaucrat out there. Is there any way short of a violent assertion of our second-amendment rights that will remind them? Sometimes I fear there is not...
I'll let the slashdot hounds deal with you. You're a traitor to the United States and people like you need to put on trial for treason. The terrorists set out to destroy our Constitution and way of life but they didn't realize they'd have an ally--the GOP. The GOP has done more to destroy our freedoms and way of life than any airplan ever did. It's too bad you're too wrapped up in your bubble to see that people like you are in the bottom third. Just wait until mid-term elections when Americans deal a blow to you treasonous fucks.
I think that to achieve greatness the article would have needed more specifics about products and purchasers, rather than a drunk in a bar telling us to let the NSA do its job.
One good item was the Dutch cop's remark that "we're 3 or 4 years ahead of this stuff", which would imply that by the time products hit the trade show circuit all the real players already have them.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You mean US based paper? English language, or other? That amazing invention "Teh Intrerweb" means you can access a lot of journalism from across the planet if your own country's papers aren't doing a good job. The Guardian did an online "World News Guide". Always fun comparing how your country's papers see the world compared to somebody else.
Just read the entire article with FF 1.5 on Linux. I suggest learning how to use your browser properly.
What?? Cutting edge investigative journalism is all around us.
How else would we have learned about that Angelina Jolie caused the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston??? Or that Oprah just lost another 40 pounds (or it gained 60 back)??? What about those photos of Brittney Spears not buckling her baby???
Problem is most folks actually care more about these topics than WMD, intelligence manipulations, torture, political corruption/bribery, or sole source contracts. Seems like most folks pick one side of the fence and then anyone who questions ANY decision becomes an evil liberal or neo-con with some secret, political agenda.
I think the larger problem is that the public has stopped caring about trivial things like laws or ethics because truth bas become relative and the other party always lies. Dare to question Halliburton and it's because you're a liberal zealot who hates big business. Dare to question affirmative action's effectiveness and it's because you're an evil racist. It's hard to have a normal discussion anymore without huge political overtones.
If the government is permitted to know our every thought, word, phone call, and whereabouts then we should be able to do the same to them. After all, we are the employers and they are the employees. In fact, it's more critical for us to know their every action and movement because they are such lazy, rotten, unscrupulous, and sometimes just plain evil buggers. If we can't and don't keep an exact eye on them, they'll certainly get up to no good.
How refreshing it would be to clean house and build a political culture like that expressed by the Dutch policeman in the article: transparency makes governance easier.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
...when do we start saving up for this guy's defense fund?
Shelly the Republican wrote a windup ..
This is a windup isn't it?
There's no investigation in this article. The guy hung out in a bar and eavesdropped on conversations and then wrote what he heard. That's not journalism. It's gossip and blogging. What a hype.
From the article:
"in the end, all this surveillance gear and attendant hype becomes meaningless with simple precautions like encrypted VOIP, a good implementation of virtual private networks, and proxies and SSH for web surfing, IM, internet relay chat, webmail and the like"
Which all goes to show that none of this is actually about stopping crime. It is about consolidating power.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
"You're not listening," he said. "The NSA is using this stuff. The DEA, the Secret Service, the CIA. Are you kidding me? They don't answer to you. They do whatever the hell they want with it.
EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
And don't think for even one minute that whoever succeeds Bush will change anything about this.
After the excesses of the CIA were revealed in the Church Report, the Agency's oversight was increased radically, and its human intelligence operations were pared down to the bone. The history of U.S. government spying on citizens is filled with ups and downs like this. The fact that we're at a new low doesn't mean it will continue to get works. The polls seem to indicate that Americans are finally waking up. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see a shift, as voters start to pressure Congress to demand more oversight over the Executive Branch's conduct of intelligence operations.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I mean, "duh!"
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Is 100% effective law-enforcement a desirable ideal, or do we want to leave a little wriggle room to the criminals of today, to ensure a possibility of anti-tyranny opposition, that may be required some time in the future?
Personaly, I think, any future tyranny will quickly move towards plugging any holes we may wish to preserve today, so we may as well aim to plug them now to reduce the crime...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Huh? Not sure if you're serious or not, but it's a pretty absurd position if it is.
Not being able to discuss things like WMD or torture without being labelled weak on terrorism greatly undermines our ability to keep the government accountable. The politics of personal destruction make it almost impossible to actually find out the truth because folks don't care what actually happened. The truth becomes irrelevant (or relative).
The problem is one party can spread lies and noone can question them without being labeled a traitor. That's a real problem.
And the propoganda fools most people. Most war supporters still believe in a tight link between Iraq and Al Queida.
Shrub's not a bilderberger, but Clinton was, and so was Pa Bush. Reagan wasn't, but his Vice President was. Carter was, iirc... Seems like a conspiracy to me.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
This summarizes the attitude of the current Bush administration, whose agents would rather sit at a computer desk surfing for perverts rather than learn Arabic and Turkish and penetrate the relevant terrorist organizations. The former is easy, can be done by fat bureaucrats sipping latte's but unfortunately does not work. The latter requires time, training and true skill but is the only process that works.
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Passing or voting for an unconstitutional law is not treason.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
First off, there's nothing "dangerous" or "secretive" about this conference. If there was, this guy wouldn't have even known about it, let alone gotten into it. It's a marketing conference where manufacturers of this stuff try to pimp it off on anyone (from anywhere) who has an interest in surveillance. Even average cops can attend. Like someone else said, the most likely reason that they make it "closed" to the press is to give it a pompous air of secrecy that doesn't really exist. The reporter, once he gets his hands on one of the "secret" CDs, finds that there's nothing of any interest on it, and hastily concludes that it must be because of a "small-minded attitude of hostility toward the press"... but anyone with the slightest bit of business sense would also include that it may very well be because they're trying to hype up their conference and make it more attractive to wanna-be spooks so that they can sell more stuff, which is what all businesses are in business to do. (of course, that line of reasoning doesn't support his "they're all out to rob us of our civil liberties" bias, so I'm sure it never crossed his mind.
Second... the quotes in this thing mean nothing. So he got a drunk, loudmouthed salesman to make (completely unsubstantiated) claims about what the US gov't does with this equipment, and how little concerned they are with the legalities of surveillance. Anyone here who's been to a tech conference knows that there are people who claim to know what's "really" going on, and everyone who's met those people knows that they're usually full of sh*t. Reporting a drunken rant as some kind of interesting "insight" is irresponsible at the least.
Then he talks to a Dutch cop, who (of course) says exactly what he wants to hear... "Secrecy is eeeevil... we're much better because we're open about how we catch criminals." (which, of course, allows them the information they need to avoid getting caught
Throughout it all, he acts as if surveillance equipment (in and of itself) is some new threat, that's inherently evil, and which "poses a tremendous threat to human rights and dignity". Seriously... it's a product. There's a marker for it, so people make it and try to sell it. The one reasonable thing that the drunk guy did say was that he should stop harassing the people that make it. I don't think anyone would argue that surveillance equipment of all kinds should be banned, so basically, it's going to get made. Posing the "but it could get used for evil" argument is a waste of time, just like it is with every other man-made object that could get used improperly, but has a primary use that is beneficial.
Basically, this was a hyped-up opinion piece written by a journalist who's "trying to make a difference" by "informing" all the people who are already worked up about privacy issues about just how bad it "really" is. If there was some kind of substance to it, it might be remotely interesting, but at face value, it falls completely flat.
And before anyone goes on some presumptive tirade about how I'm a right-wing blah blah blah who's more concerned about your sex-life than I am about civil rights, save your breath. I'm not saying that unabashed gov't monitoring is good, or necessary or that I support it or any other nonsense like that... I'm only saying that this article is an insubstantial pile of dung written by someone with an obvious bias of the topic looking to paint himself as a champion of "truth".
WATYF
Perhaps they still have the rule of law there...
--jfc
terrorism is the root password for the constitution
I didn't realize wiretappers had balls.
The quote in the leading paragraph about Qatar being more lawful than the West is out of context and wrongly represents the tone of the article. The author of the article expressed more concern about totalitarian regimes than the West. The above-mentioned quote was actually from a drunk salesman. Ever talked to a drunk salesman? The poster should be smacked for flaim-baiting by using an out of context quote that wrongly frames the article.
> What's to discuss? You vote your way, I'll vote mine.
What if your way is wrong? Or my way is wrong?
If we discuss the issues we care about, you may raise points that I hadn't considered, and change my mind. Or I may do the same and change your mind. Either way, we both become more informed and more able to separate truth from bias.
If we don't discuss, then all we have to go on is whatever our favourite news sources tell us, which may not go as far as "propaganda", but certainly isn't as far the other way as "unbiased". The propaganda doesn't fool people because they discuss.
This really is the crux of the matter. Good police work is difficult. In a democracy with human rights protections, it's supposed to be difficult, dammit!
The point is not whether surveillance equipment should be made, but whether we know enough about how it's made and used.
Do you know enough? If not, just shut up and stop whining about how little you've known from what others find. I truly don't know what you are trying to say here.
I must be new here, because I read the article. What a disappointment.
Gonzo journalism isn't what it used to be anymore, now that HST has left.
There were important talks he should have attended and covered. Here's the agenda.. But no, all we get is comments from people in the lobby.
In its heyday, Wired sent reporters on assignment for months to get good stories. Then they laid off most of the real reporters. Now, the articles are filler for their Sharper Image catalog content.
Snuck is considered poor or uneducated English, Look it up.
I believe the poster meant "sneaked".
--x
I know, I know...off topic, but I had to . . .
The "trick" the presenter used was this - before he spoke, he passed out 3 or 4 sealed envelopes to 3 or 4 randome people as they came in to listen to him speak. There were about 200 people attending the presentation. He spoke a little about bias, and told people about the envelopes, and that he had wrote down a number between 1 and 10 on cards in the envelopes. He then asked the audience members to think of a number between 1 and 10, and write it down. After that was done, he asked for a show of hands of who wrote down each number. The majority of the hands that went up was for the number "3". He then asked those people who he had passed out the envelopes to, to open them, and read the card inside. The first person read "3". The second person read "3", and so on for the third and fourth person.
How did he know that the number picked by the audience was "3"? Because he knew that for that particular audience (mainly CEOs and similar), they had a bias towards the number "3". Whether they knew that or not, is another question.
By being aware of biases in our lives, and discussing them, we can all learn to avoid them rather than subcumb to them. Unfortunately, for most people in the world, they don't realize what biases (most nearly unconcious, by the way) they have. Furthermore, they don't discuss this possibility, or ways to deal with it so that their social interactions are more fair, and, well - unbiased.
Unfortunately, there are individuals and groups who know what other group's biases are - and can use this knowledge to manipulate and influence these individuals and groups. Manipulation via lack of discourse, in other words...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
So only rich people can run for office? Great idea...not.
Constitutionally Correct
Actually, "Conspiracy Against Rights" (18 USC 241/242) already covers this. The penalty for conspiring to deprive people of their constitutional rights (passed during the civil rights era) is up to 10 years in prison. If kidnapping (would unlawful imprisonment qualify?) is involved, or someone dies as a result, the maximum penalty is death.
See for yourself:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.htm
-b.
The Logan Act prohibits PRIVATE CITIZENS from attempting to influence policies of FOREIGN powers in ways contrary to the efforts of the US government. In other words, you can't run your own personal foreign policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of US public officials to meet with private citizens to discuss policy in secret.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > 953
953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Remember our rights are being violated by BOTH republicans and democrats.
Libertarians wouldn't do such a thing.
Libertas in infinitum