Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues the Dept. of Defense Over Surveillance
An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched a lawsuit against the US government, demanding the publication of information about FBI cyber surveillance operations. The EFF launched its action after the authorities failed to disclose information requested under the Freedom of Information act. The EFF wants to find out more about two electronic surveillance systems used by the government agency to monitor electronic communications." From the article: "A Justice Department Inspector General report in March said the FBI had spent about $10 million on DCS-3000 to intercept communications over emerging digital technologies used by wireless carriers before next year's federal deadline for them to deploy their own wiretap capabilities. The same report said the FBI spent more than $1.5 million to develop Red Hook, 'a system to collect voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information' before those wiretap capabilities are in place."
Who cares about this?
Certainly its part of the "GET BUSH" mission statement that is now slashdots operating objective 30 days outside of an election...
If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody's there, does it make a sound?
If your voice calls are transcribed by a machine, but nobody submits a query to the database that retrieves your transcript, were you wiretapped?
Don't they have *anything* better to do w/ that money?
ilex paraguariensis for all
Everyone make a donation to the EFF, they have done a lot......
Website
The GPL, for those that truely understand.
Since when is the FBI a DOD component? The article referred to DOJ.
Are you guys so eager to discredit the US government that you cannot read?
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense. The linked article gets this right. As far as I can tell, there's no connection with the DOD to this story at all, other than both being executive branch departments.
The summary even refers to the DOJ (a "Justice Department Inspector General") - Zonk apparently read the article, so why the incorrect headline?
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
IANAL, but how effective can any sort of lawsuit against the government be these days? Isn't it the same government that runs the courts? If the FBI feels national security is at stake by releasing the information the EFF is looking for, wouldn't they just say to the courts "oh, it's national security.. terrorists and the like, it's best if you leave us be." And the court answer would be "oh well, if it's in the name of national security, you guys are all set. Case dismissed."
Or is there any integrity left in the government at this point.
I'm sorry, If we have a battlefield PBX tapped by the .mil forces on the ground in Afghanistan, and the PBX makes an inbound call to the united states, I give them the green light to keep listening.
The liars pretend that our Military is looking for people smoking bong hits in their basement.
The tree comment is not about the falling but whether "sound" exists without someone to hear it. The disturbance of the air exists, that is easy. But is that disturbance "sound" if no one can hear it?
So, if someone taps your phone, your phone has been tapped.
The question you are asking should be "if no one requests that tap be used, have your Rights been violated".
Once that tap has been used, and data collected, whether any person sees that data is irrelevant. The tap has been used, the information has been collected. The tree has fallen, the sound has been heard.
....tip of the iceberg?
This is like trying to dig up a small tree or a bush [pun intended] -- you think there isn't much to dig up, but as you excavate you keep finding more and more roots entwined under the ground.
So to recap: we have the telco industry handing over *all* our phone call logs to the NSA, and the FBI is involved in a wireless LAN snooping program. You have to wonder what the hell we're going to find out next about the US government intelligence / law enforcement community.
"Come on, man -- I mean, *look* at this shit! It isn't a question of whether or not you're paranoid; it's a question of whether or not you're paranoid ENOUGH." -- from the movie _Strange_Days_
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
Seriously we some famous cases that we all memorize in class where the little guy wins. But just as we shake our heads at Microsoft throwing its weight around, is there really much we (joe citizen) can do about Govt Policies?
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
That we are unlikely to catch the one important call out of the millions per minute.
The nature of people in power states : they will gather all the dirty laundry of opponents (and "friends") they want to and use it to increase their power.
Yes to both questions.
Everybody who quotes the "if a tree falls" chestnut (at least those who quote it without making a joke) totally misunderstands what Bishop B was trying to say. He wasn't arguing that there is no noise in the forest — that's a silly idea. He was arguing that since events don't occur without an observer, there must be somebody observing all the events that demonstrably occur, but don't have a human observer. In other words, he's arguing that there must be a God.
So the trees do fall, and the FBI does indeed know about your dial-a-porn addiction. Unless you're going to argue that trees don't fall until somebody finds the rotten log, or the FBI doesn't know what it knows until they access their database. And if you're going to make that kind of convoluted rationalization, you need to get out more.
Granted, the EFF is trying to protect our rights as citizens, and in my opinion they are doing a decent job as such; however, people please.. it is your responsibility to protect your own privacy, and if you are doing something that you do not want others to know about, please please use a Good Encryption system, a Good Anonymizing Proxy for browsing the web, and definately get a Good Web Browser. If people would follow these three little tips, it would make eavesdropping on your communications about 100 times more difficult.
YahmaThat people with an interest in science and technology and with a strongly libertarian bent would not like Bush?
It's not about the issues for people like you. For you, it is a "my sports team" or "my favorite softdrink" mentality. You do not value your liberty and you do not think through the issues. You are simply rooting for a team.
IANAL either but I think the ACLU v. NSA decision mapped the path around the State Secrets defense.
A.) You wait for the Administration to brag about how it is chasing down the "terrists" and let them adequately describe how they are breaking the law.
B.) Find a few people with standing that probably have been damaged by those illegal actions while avoiding the need to produce specific individual records from the illegal activities.
As long as you don't ask the Gov't to produce specific info regarding their illegal activities, they cannot claim State Secrets.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
IANAL, but how effective can any sort of lawsuit against the government be these days? Isn't it the same government that runs the courts?
In most despotic nations this would be the case, but the founding fathers of the United States had in mind all too well of what happens when the government owns all three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) and puts them to use (like the Egnlish crown).
So they went about creating a system in which each of the three groups would "check and ballance" each other out... So the President couldn't own the congress and courts at the same time...
Unfortunatley, they overestimated the power of corruptions and now we face something that appears to be the Founding Father's worst nightmare.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Why we support the EFF. The EFF helps citizens keep the government in check. This is just one of the many scandals the EFF has brought to the public's attention.
Instead of whining about the erosion of our civil liberties, do something about it - support the EFF.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It's amazing that EFF takes the lead in going after the government when it steps out-of-bounds. It is scary to think what the government would do if there was nobody playing watch-dog (the same goes for the ACLU, PIRG's, etc...). What's even more freaky is what evil plans might already be in the works! Help us, Superman! (or Help us, ___________! -- insert your favorite superhero)
ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM
A documentary about the invisible war on culture.
Features EFF Attorney JASON SCHULTZ, RMS, DANGER MOUSE (of Gnarls Barkley and the Grey Album), LAWRENCE LESSIG, and more...
http://alternativefreedom.org/
($1 from every purchase is donated to EFF)
Its the NGA thats watching you pick your nose in your backyard.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
simply because someone presented the issue with a point of view in place, or mislabeled it, that doesnt change the issue that the government, any government, this administration or others, republican or democrat, might be withholding documents that should be publicly available under the freedom of information act. bickering over bias, over this mistake or that, does not change the issue.
You mean the proxies that the feds subpoena to get the user data?
And the encryption algorithm that contains the government mandated backdoor?
We are the 198 proof..
How do you know that blastproxy.com isn't actually being run by the FBI as a honeypot to entrap people who need anonymous access to acheive their nefarious ends on the web? Come on now, instead of sifting through ALL the traffic on the web, isn't it a lot easier to just create a service that criminals will naturally gravitate towards, while at the same time floating rumours that you are actually sifting through all the traffic, thus driving those who don't want to be traced to the service you created?
Getting Bush has nothing to do with this election since he isn't running. Plus if Bush didn't screw up so much then there wouldn't be alot of Bush bashing. I'm concerned about fellow Americans who think it's okay for our government to spy on its citizens. It's scarey that Americans get mad at fellow Americans more than they get mad a politicians. Remember the days when politicans were the ones we hated and not our neighbors.
Can I bum a sig?
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
Um, yes, even if nobody submits a query to the database that retrieves your transcript, your rights have been trampled on if you were wiretapped and the calls transcribed, machine or no.
The mantra in the authoritarian/dictatorial sewers of our current "Administration" is "Data=Power".
In the old days of the Hoover FBI, the buttoned-down martinets who worked for that cross-dressing queen used to confront a citizen with a big, fat file and say "Don't you want to help your Government?" and the poor schlub would be ready to turn in his own mother.
It's the same idea under Bush and his "Trust Me" brand of Constitutional Compliance. Naturally, he'd never actually USE his newly minted powers of "Unitary Executive", but God knows, they're there if he needs them.
God I hope you people are gonna be able to take the time off of work Nov 7 so you can vote. I know it's hard with your boss being an asshat and all, but if we don't get some oversight over these maniacs, Lord knows what he's going to do as he's going out the door in the next 2 years.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The write-up and the actual article talk about EFF suing FBI. Yet the title says "Department of Defense". WTF?
There is no word "defense" in the entire FA, in fact...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Fallacies, how shall we count thee? First, it's outright derision with the laughter bit. Then, you seque directly into ad hominem, followed by a redefinition of terms. You follow that quickly with hyperbole (the "stone age" is a little much). Then, I have to admit something: you lost me. So it might be that I'm misunderstanding your point. Gosh, it's almost like you're claiming to know the future
But this just slays me:
The mission is already "Accomplished". The mission to create instability in the middle east in an attempt to slow down Europe from becoming the dominant superpower on earth.
Europe is doing a fine job of falling down on the way to superpower status all by itself. The mission in Iraq was not and is not to destabilize. The forces who oppose us (Al Qaeda and friends) have that as their goal. We want stability, because stability breeds prosperity and because we just like stability. So not only are the two premises of your absurd statement false, your logic is invalid because, get this: there is no link between stability in the Middle East and European superpower status. Or at least, you failed to show one.
But let me give you an alternate way of looking at things that may help explain the CBS Evening News for you. There are two kinds of world leaders: foreign policy "realists" and "idealists". A realist sees foreign policy as a morality-free arena, and his goal is to manipulate the world to achieve some personal or national goal -- but he doesn't care about what he can't control. Since there is no right and wrong, and we and other nations are basically the same, there's no sense trying to spread our ideology. An idealist, on the other hand, has certain goals: supporting human rights, fighting communism, etc. Hugo Chavez is an idealist. Jacques Chirac is a realist. Got it? Like most things, it's a spectrum, and I don't intend to pigeonhole anybody.
Bill Clinton was a realist. Carter and Reagan were idealists when they came into office, and Reagan stayed that way. Jimmy Carter came into office as an idealist, as I said, but he quickly discovered realism. George W. Bush came into office as a realist (though he did make some noise about religious persecution, it didn't even rise to the level of sabre-rattling). 9/11 changed him into an foreign policy idealist. He believes (at least, I believe he believes) that there is a clear Good versus Evil epic being written, and wants to be the hero of it.
So if you're going to hate W, at least get his flaw right. He's not playing Risk to keep Europe at bay or rule the world. He's trying to turn the Huns back at the Volga.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
The FBI is not in the DOD, they are in the DOJ. What a blatantly wrong headline.
Unfortunately, such encryption isn't ubiquitous enough to protect non-critical transmissions: normal business and personal email, cell phone conversation, and many IM-style tools aren't remotely secure enough. Even for common encryption techniques such as SSL, the keys are rarely well-protected enough to prevent "law enforcement" from stealing them and monitring traffic secretly.
There are technologically reasonable techniques, such as the so-called "Trusted Computing" tools that are growing in use, but notice that those require signed, registered keys from companies like Microsoft. That's no protection whatsoever against abuse by federal agencies with access to the fundamental key signature authorities. It's a real political and technical problem: it's very difficult to get approval for general export for any tools that include robust encryption without gaping security holes for "approved" federal access.
I am not terribly concerned honestly, and it's not because 'I have nothing to hide and are therefore clean', but rather the FBI as a whole is generally so by-the-book it's sickening. On average they the boyrgscouts who don't break laws because it's illegal and they would never do anything illegal. When I talked to the EFF guys @ defcon, this was a point we all agreed on, they have no problem with wiretaps from the FBI because they sit down and do the necessary paperwork.
This isn't a lawsuit like the one against AT&T, this is a FOIA 'hey you didnt give us everything' lawsuit. In short, I'm not terribly concerned that the FBI has monitoring capabilities and such, they're so by the book that I won't be watched unless it's legal and I did something wrong.