FBI Planning New Net-Tapping Push

Section_Ei8ht writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the FBI is pushing for legislation to allow law enforcement officials free access to networking gear via built in backdoors for eavesdropping. From the article: "Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of a Homeland Security advisory board, said the proposal would 'have a negative impact on Internet users' privacy. People expect their information to be private unless the government meets certain legal standards,' Harper said. 'Right now the Department of Justice is pushing the wrong way on all this.'"

Comments

Let me defend the law

[Umbral Blot]

I know you will all hate me for saying this, but with a warrent the officials should be able to get into anywhere they want, including your electronic systems. As far from the article this law isn't about removing the needs for warrents, simply about making it possible for systems to be tapped when needed and when lawful. Denying officials access to these systems would be like denying them access to certain buildings. Although it is true that most buildings will never need to be investigated some will have bodies buried under the basement. Our right to privacy is protected by the need for warrents; making it harder for officials to conduct lawful investigations just helps criminals.

Re:Let me defend the law

[Anonymous Coward]

"but with a warrent the officials should be able to get into anywhere they want, including your electronic systems"

*@$#![1]

No, they shouldn't. Warrants are/were supposed to be specific as to what they were looking for; they were not an opportunity to go on a fishing expedition.

Just another example of how things are misused badly now, and people thinking that's the way they're supposed to be used. Warrants these days are so flimsy, even given from undocumented witnesses, and broad, you think that was always the norm.

We see this all the time, esp. with ISP raids. Law enforcement has an overly broad warrant, given for a specific reason, and they end up taking *all* the computers, networking equipment, hard drives, etc., disconnecting innocent and unaffiliated systems, trouncing over private data, digging into files that have no bearing on the case, and disrupting services and lives.

Yes, backdoors are bad simply because historically/generally most backdoors by government are weak and subject to (supposedly) undesired security intrustions. But don't also go thinking that warrants were ever supposed to be granted on a whim or broadly. That's a compounding issue itself.

[1] What I really wanted to do/did here was yell "You apologetic idiot!" but then this would never get read. Then again, I always post as AC, so this won't likely be read anyways.

It may take months, it may take years...

[QCompson]

...but this legislation or something very similar to it will pass. The fbi/U.S. government has discovered just how easy and effective it is to monitor citizens over the internet. Since so much of our daily life now occurs over the "tubes" of the internet (banking, purchasing, social-networking, entertainment, phone-calls, etc.), it makes it all too simple for the government to assemble detailed files on citizens just by eavesdropping on their net connection.

Sure, at first the feds/police will need to get warrants, but eventually that requirement too will fade away. The eye of Big Brother in every room will be present in the form of our internet connections. It is so pathetically easy for the government to get monitoring power over our online lives; all they have to do is repeat three words over and over again. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. That's it. If they keep repeating those three words, any legislation they want will glide right through Congress.

Re:I am a patriotic American.

[KylePflug]

Ironically, though this was meant as sarcasm, I really don't mind if the government knows most of those things about me (OK, maybe not 'every thought I've ever had,' but most of the rest would be pretty much fine by me.)

However, I object in principle for two reasons:

• Because someday the government may become actually oppressive (as in "take arms" oppressive), and it is at that point that the infrastructure which our rights to privacy currently prevent would be a serious liability to all interested in life, liberty, et al.
• Because while I don't have anything I would object horribly to the government knowing about me, I am not willing to cast my vote to allow them to, because to do so would be taking on the authority to decide that neither would anyone else.

So no, I have nothing to hide, and don't really object to some at least mostly impartial body knowing my 'secrets' as a matter of pragmatism, but in principle and because I can't speak for those around me, I object.

Do you expect never to be robbed?

[khasim]

I've never expected privacy on the Internet, either from the peering eyes of the government or my neighbors.

So, you run your own business, eh? Do you expect that your business will never be robbed?

If you expect to be robbed, then why do we need any laws protecting your property rights?

Frankly, I really don't want any new laws "protecting my privacy," at least so far as this interwebs thing goes; I can protect myself just fine, thanks for asking...

Of course you can. Provided that you never need a credit history. But most businesses operate on net 30 or similar. So you'd need some protection and "privacy". You might want to look up "fraud" and "identity theft".

Maybe because I was in business long before e-mail and instant messaging and the Web became "standard" and still view them as something about which to be wary.

Maybe. You may be right. Or ...

RobotRunAmok
(email not shown publicly)

Well, it does seem that you DO value this "privacy" thing to some degree. You're using a 'nym and you've chosen to not reveal you email address. Why is that?

You're posting ... anonymously ... regarding pending legislation. Yeah, we need to make sure that that never happens. People should never be able to anonymously state their opposition / support for legislation.

Re:Ummmm awsome? pffft

[OldSpiceAP]

There were breaks when I hit submit. Something with the overall legnth maybe? Perhaps I am just insane!

the Secure Hardware Environment (SHE)

[LionKimbro]

You guys know exactly where we're headed, right?

I hope you've been reading your Vinge. This is equivalent to homework, if you're a technologist (programmers, that means you.)

Our destination is the Secure Hardware Environment (SHE).

That is, every computing device will have to have a section for the government built in, and the government will require access to just a small part of network traffic.

Further: All manufacturing will be observed. (see: Don't Try This at Home, and Remote Biology Labs -- how could it be allowed to work out any other way?) The US government (not sure which parts) is already rejecting chips for computers where the manufacturing process is unknown or unwatched (link lost; sorry.)

This will be done for your safety.

See also: Big Brother Takes a Controlling Interest in Chips. Rainbows End.

My view of things

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont feel like mankeing an account, so it says my name is Anonymous Coward. But im not, all that im doing is protecting my right to remain anonymous. If you are willing to give up everything to the govornment, then do it, personally i think your stupid. The reason i dont think they should have access to our information is as follows: Information is power, and power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly. Not only do i not trust the govornment with my information because govorments tend to misuse information, but i dont trust them because they are lax about who can see it. A state govornment sold several hundred state computers to make room for upgrades, only problem is that they diddnt clean the hard drive first. Not very smart. If the FBI forces the ISP's to have backdoors for evesdropping then anyone whith experience in hacking can get in, and that means that anyone can get at our information. Or the FBI can use a hacker to get in without a warrent, and when they said hacker gets persicuted then the FBI can pardon him and give him money, now the FBI has your information, and they diddnt even need a warrent. Great use of power. If the legislature passes, im either going to move out of the country, sell my computer and go to an internet cafe, or just use the highest encryption methods available, if they have a warrent and they NEED to see what im doing then they can come to my house and ask me for my computer, and ill give it up. But if they want to be sneaky and do it behind my back, then they can kiss my hairy white ass and fuck off....ofcorse its my view of things, you may not agree with me and thats ok. But when they arrest you on suspicion of being a terrorist because the dumb fucks mistook something as threatening, then dont come crying to me.

Sales of US-manufactured networking equipment?

[RDaneel2]

Who is going to want to buy this stuff?

Not anyone outside the US... and not anyone *inside* - at least until they are required by law to "patriotically" only buy US-made networking gear.

It would have been nice if they had learned *something* from the years of the crypto export restrictions - stuff without the restrictions / backdoors / etc will be made somewhere, and will be purchased and used...

All this crap does is kill the viability in the global marketplace of products from US networking gear manufacturers. Sigh.

Leave the fibbies in the chat rooms

[conlaw]

I assume we're talking about the same FBI that just stopped the plan to blow up the Holland Tunnel by monitoring a chat room where the the suspects were discussing their plans. Of course, all the terrorism experts say that the "plot" would have never worked and that no real terrorists would sit around discussing their plans in an open chat room. Who knows what they'll "find" if they leave the chat rooms?

Let me also defend the law...

[DaedalusHKX]

There is a little piece of legislature you should be familiar with, but obviously you are not.

It is called the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. It has several Ammendments, most of them (14 onward) are crap. But 1 - 10 are known as the bill of rights, and were not added lightly. They ensure that the government will NEVER infringe upon the rights of the people. Properly abided by, this Constitution, by itself, can easily guarantee that the rights of the people are not infringed.

One of these rights is the right to be "secure in their persons, papers, property and effects and to be secure from unreasonable search".

Its known as "the fourth ammendment".

Being that MANY liberals here are die hards of privacy and right to free speech, perhaps you ought to read up on your laws, and learn the law that CREATED THIS REPUBLIC (which we now falsely mislabel democracy due to the demagogues on both sides advertising it as such (read your Franklin quotes if you wish to dig up the truth, our founding fathers HATED the term Democracy as much as they hated Monarchy).

Might I add that if you move to China, the law will do for you exactly what you asked of it in your comment? Their constitution says that China GRANTS the citizens rights, and can revoke them when the citizens rights infringe upon interests of the state (whatever they may be).

Perhaps we should reinstate the right of the people to organize local militias, the right to bear arms, and the right to police oneself instead of waiting for the "authorities" to come dictate how life is to be lived.

My parents live in a heavy ex military, ex and current police and redneck neighborhood. They are liberals, but are happy to have said neighbors. They live next to a violent big city in VA (with very tough gun laws to keep the city "safe", but illegal gun crime with unlicensed smuggled guns leads the charts, only topped by illegal KNIFE AND FIST crime.) My folks however, have a neighborhood with ZERO crime rate for 10 years ongoing. Less than 5 miles away from said violent city (part of Hampton Roads, VA). Why? Because of almost NO gun laws. In Newport News, you need 45 days to 3 months to get a conceal carry permit. Yeah, tough law enforcement... and massive crime. In Williamsburg, Yorktown, Gloucester. It takes at most 45 days. Usually 3 to 15. I think Wmsbg has had 3 violent murders in 3 years(all college students, all with KNIVES, not guns), and despite 3 day conceal carry permits and liberal gun laws, wmsbg is a top retiree spot in the state. Odd? I think not.

Perhaps instead of defending draconian bullshit, we should defend the Constitution. I've seen it at work. Jefferson was right. "Let your pistol be your companion on all your walks." And indeed, if you do, and you know your pistol well, it shall keep you safer than all the 911 calls in the world ever could. (Cops will have to figure out who to shoot after they find your dead, raped body. You already have a 100% correct idea who to shoot while the rape is getting ready to occur.)

Perhaps if, instead of paying more idiots to staff Homeland Security, perhaps we should allow our citizens to do what they did in 1940, that is CARRY ON PLANES! South american nations allow it, and I have YET to see one successful hijacking, even if they're only allowed to carry .22 and .380 (non military pistols only), those can STILL kill a terrorist when 20 people stand up and open fire on Akbar and Ahmad.

Might I add that I have done plenty of aeronautical research, my father and his father were both engineers (one mechanical, and my father was aeronautical and space researcher) both agree that "explosive" decompression like in "Final Destination" is the stuff of movies. Most aircraft actually DO leak. Ask military people if their planes decompose when they perform HALO jumps. I have yet to hear of a military plane fall apart when they go do the HALO jump. But just like uber explosive diesel tanks in movies, everyone buys what the government sells and tyranny lives on. (Hint, diesel is a high compression BURN, it does not explode if a gas tank is hit. Diesel takes ENORMOUS pressure to ignite.)

Re:Reading things like this

[crystalattice]

I've been using Tor from the EFF for several weeks now. To use the most common argument against itself, if I'm doing nothing wrong then I should have nothing to hide, right? However, if I'm doing nothing wrong, then there should be no reason to snoop on me and no one should be concerned if I prefer to use onion servers for my personal Internet use.

Additionally, what incentive do I have to make law enforcement's job easier? If they're only going after the bad guys, then they should already have enough legal force to get the job done. Just because I prefer to remain anonymous and encrypt my data doesn't mean I'm a criminal; it just means I like my privacy.

They are the same.

[khasim]

Nice analogy. However if someone in your family murders you, frankly no one else gives a damn.

Look up "Phil Hartman". You can find other examples on your own.

As oppossed to, say, a few thousand people getting killed at the same time and witnessed by people around the globe.

It was only "witnessed by people around the globe" because it was repeatedly broadcast.

If they repeatedly broadcast car wrecks around the globe, then the same could be said of them.

People who then wonder, can I even count on being safe going to work in the morning.

"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Again, there is more of a threat to those people from other cars on the highway than from terrorists.

Financial markets that then wonder, exactly how resilient is this supposed super power.

"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. The country was in no more danger that day than a year prior.

Industry leaders who then wonder, maybe I should scale back hiring and investment because who knows what's going to happen next.

"Terrorism" is about scaring other people. Their businesses were in no more danger that day than than a year prior.

So all things considered, the two are not the same and the consequences of one are much greater and reach much further than the other.

No, they are the same in that in each scenario, people die.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

The only differences are:
a. You are far more likely to die from aspirin than from terrorism.

b. People who do not understand statistics succumb to the "terror" in "terrorism".

Thankfully, outside of Slashdot, the nation is not populated by chicken littles and people are willing to take a slight reduction in privacy/anonymity in return for an increased liklihood that the government will be able to prevent more attacks.

And, over time, those "slight reductions" result in ... a police state.

Now, to demonstrate your understanding of statistics, why don't you name 5 countries which have fewer Rights than the US and fewer terrorist attacks.

If you cannot, then your point is invalid.

People also have enough common sense to realize that this is not a dictatorship, GW and friends will be out of power in a few more years, and our system of government will - as it always has - correct what some see as the excesses of current policy.

What "excesses of current policy"?

Either the reduction of Rights is necessary, or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.

By the way, facism starts when the populace has its involvement in political life curtailed.

Really? Perhaps you can provide an example of such? All of the Fascist states that I'm familiar with (Italy, German, etc) did not prevent the citizens from participating in politics. In fact, the citizens were encouraged to support the Fascists by identifying the "threats" in their communities.

The first shadow of the future police states was cast by the policies of Czarist Russia. It was not the czars overreaction to domestic terrorism that spawned it, it was the systematic denial of political involvement to the Russian citizenry for centuries.

"first shadow" and "centuries" don't match. Something cannot be the "first shadow" that happens over "centuries".

You may also want to read about various monarchs throughout the ages.

There have and always will be enemies of the state, and it is foolish to think that they are falsehoods perpetuated by those in power.

Look up "McCarthy witch hunt".

The key to preventing facism is an engaged citizenry with the political ability to curtail the overreaction of the g

Re:They are the same.

[ResidntGeek]

terrorist attacks have far greater and far reaching consequences than the mundane tragedies of life that you bring up.

Because people like you make it so.

Re:Let me attack the law

[darkonc]

Do you have something against the regular police wiretaps done with warrants?

No. I have something against irregular wiretaps done without warrents. Possibly even without the involvement of the police.

If you think that nobody outside of the police forces is going to have the codes to break into your network a week after the date is available, you've got your head in the sand.

Back in the '80s when it was common for the games companies to copy-protect their games (before they finally figured out that this just upset their legitimate customers), a friend of mine came in with a cracked copy of the latest game -- weeks before the game was available to legitimate purchasers. Network backdoor codes are going to be like that. The 2% of crooked cops will ensure that no spammer is going to lack for that information.

Re:You forgot drugs and drug traffickers

[wilec]

Yea this almost happened to me a few years back. My wife was setup as an intermediate in a nickel assed pot purchase (less than $50 if I remember right) for a disabled vet and supposed "friend" and in law of her brother. Apparently he had gotten in some serious trouble and bought his way out setting up everyone he could to the regional DEA task force. After the search came up empty of any drugs they pretty much trashed my home and repeatedly crashed my computer equipment trying to get past the login prompt.

I am sure it would have been worse if not for local law enforcement folks that knew us well enough to know I or my wife were not involved in the level of charges that this "friend" had made. To start with the local ATF agent limited the scope of the items described in the warrant to those directly pertaining to the charges. In addition I believe an decent and honest local police chief mostly limited the actual search actions to the parameters of the warrant. Once again the local ATF agent was to be commended when he refused to issued a second warrant to confiscate my computer equipment because it "looked too expensive for me to have bought" and as you state because I might have evidence of the locations of my obviously well hidden drug stash on the computer. I was told that the DEA agent had mentioned to the ATF agent at the time that I had "some kind of encrypted industrial software" (Linux and BSD) on my computer that he could not get past on the site and that he would have to take it to the lab to get at it. These computers he wanted, along with my guns to run ballistics on, and a small safe he managed to damage with a crowbar without opening, though I gave him the combination. The good ole ATF agent told him he missed his chance he should have took the safe in the first place and the rest were not his to take.

Not to be deterred the DEA agent went next to my employer and told the VP of my division that he suspected I had stolen company computer equipment in my home, asking the VP to assist him in the acquisition of a warrant. Again yet another person did the right thing and called my department manager and I suspect company legal reps. My department manager insisted the charge was nuts and said he would get back with them after checking with me. In the end I allowed my manager and a IS dept staff member to check my computer equipment against a list of stolen equipment without a warrant or the presence of the DEA agent or other law enforcement being present. Of course I did not have any and that was the end most of the issue as I had by this time contacted my lawyer and he kinda put the brakes on the DEA agents continued adventure on my ticket.

The final outcome my wife got to spend about 36 hours in jail plus five years probated sentence for conspiracy to traffic and I got to spend about 6 hours in jail, define Agnostic for the booking deputy and got a deferred prosecution, of what I am still not sure. Oh and we were out about $3k total for lawyer, fine and court cost, about $500 in cash that disappeared the day of the search, a couple hundred more in damaged items, about two days cleanup, several days work, and plenty of embarrassment. All for my wife trying to simply make the connections to help a disabled vet and supposed "family friend" get a nickel bag of pot he said he needed for his pain and nausea.

This adventure shows me both how broken this system is in some respects, but also how it can sometimes work when people decide to do the right thing. I started to post this as an AC, but heck the damaging part to me is public record anyway and the details well this way at least my side of the story gets told. My lawyers advice of course was to shut up and let him make the deal. I still don't know if I got took or got lucky. Yea I like ole TJ, I would love to be able to travel in time just to have a pint and one on one discourse with folks the likes of him.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Thanks Ray
Thanks Jack
Thanks Archie