Slashdot Mirror


Technical Risks of the US Protect America Act

A group of respected security researchers has released a paper on the security holes that would be opened up if a broad warrantless wiretapping law is passed. The subject could hardly be more timely, as Congress is debating the subject now. Steve Bellovin, Matt Blaze, Whit Diffie, Susan Landau, Peter Neumann, and Jennifer Rexford have released a preprint of Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act (PDF), which will appear in the January/February 2008 issue of IEEE Security and Privacy. It will hit the stands in a few weeks. From Matt Blaze's blog posting: "As someone who began his professional carrier in the Bell System (and who stayed around through several of its successors), the push for telco immunity represents an especially bitter disillusionment for me. Say what you will about the old Phone Company, but respect for customer privacy was once a deeply rooted point of pride in the corporate ethos. There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not. And it was genuinely part of the culture; we believed in it, even those of us ordinarily disposed toward a skeptical view of the official company line. Now it all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR."

25 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Call your senators by Steeltalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing that we can do is look at material like this and make sure that we communicate these points to those who represent us. It's only natural to be cynical about the likelihood of making a difference with your call, but unless you take that action we'll never know if we could stop this thing.

    --
    Regards, Ian
    1. Re:Call your senators by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish that was true.. and honestly I thought it was somewhat true.. till after having a conversation with a friend of mine and her roomate. They both work for Senators, in one case that individual is actually the person who filters all the calls that go into a senators office, and decides what gets through.. and what does not... (Apparently most of the calls they get involve black helicopters.. go figure). I mentioned the latest FISA related stuff, and her response was that the Senator has "people" that research that stuff all day and inform the senator.. to which my response was that, that was not the point I was trying to make, and that the point I was making is that the people they represent are against said bills, not whether they are cooks or not. She shrugged her shoulders... at me... Which leads me to believe, that the people the senators hire (which obviously fall in line with the senators agenda), have no interest in hearing from constituents, but rather already have the answer, and are only really researching the questions.

      I honestly hope this scenario is incorrect, but that is the impression I got from that little conversation.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    2. Re:Call your senators by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The day my "representatives" listen to me is the day they learn I donated more than the telco industry.

    3. Re:Call your senators by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget 9/11 changed everything.

    4. Re:Call your senators by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One solution to that is to get your politicians face to face, rather than going through the flappers. This is sometimes tricky, but essentially involves waiting for an opportunity (like when he's back in his district), and walk right up to him and start talking. Sometimes he'll walk away (which is a pretty clear message in and of itself), but most will listen to you for about 1-5 minutes first.

      I've done this with my entire legislative delegation (congressman and 2 senators) at some point or another, and my results are at least as decent as calling or emailing: My congressman actually did what I asked him to do, which was to impeach Dick Cheney first.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Call your senators by WK2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't forget 9/11 changed everything.

      Not really. We have always been at war with Eastasia. It used to be called something else, though.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  2. Thank you Matt Blaze by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One more document showing privacy = security.

  3. The U.S. government is very corrupt. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Now it [privacy] all seems like just another bit of cynical, focus-group-tested PR."

    The U.S. government has become extremely corrupt. One method is the one mentioned, testing for weaknesses in public understanding, or willingness to act, and exploiting those weaknesses.

    Here are others:

    Making sure that honest, public-minded leaders from both parties are defeated.

    Giving bills in Congress misleading names, like "Protect America".

    Giving bills misleading features and widely publicizing the misleading features. For example, the "economic stimulus" bill only causes the government, which is deeply in debt, to print more money. That will make the value of the dollar go down even further. The "economic stimulus" bill also contains provisions to funnel money to banks. The banks apparently deliberately created the mortgage finance crisis doing so was profitable, and because banks were sure that the U.S. government would pass a bill to lessen the losses.

    1. Re:The U.S. government is very corrupt. by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure the apparently extremely democratic-party-biased link is very helpful in this case. Yes, America is in debt, but it seems that you are attempting to push that the Democrat party is much less corrupt than the Republican party?

    2. Re:The U.S. government is very corrupt. by dr2chase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, yes. Delay, Abramoff, and that crowd were pretty much in the business of trading earmarks (lots of earmarks) for votes on bills. The Democrats aren't saints (I post from MA), but when the Republicans got control, they went very bad very fast. There's also the small issue of pretty much the entire Republican Party, with the exception of Ron Paul and John McCain, being pretty much ok with actions that, in previous wars, were called torture. Translated from the original German, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

    3. Re:The U.S. government is very corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the banks intentionally decided to lose billions of dollars.

      They didn't intentionally "decide to lose billions of dollars", they took a running leap off of a cliff to try and grasp the billions of dollars that they mistakenly thought were just hanging out there, confident in the knowledge that even if they missed the jackpot, the US government would be there to catch them at the bottom.

      In other words, expecting a giant reward, they took a humongous risk, far greater than their corporations could actually support. The only reason they took this risk was because they either expected not to fail, or they expected that should they fail the government would save them from the risk they took upon themselves. So now that the banks have been bailed out yet again, what will keep them from continuing this cycle of widespread destruction?

      but they like their money.

      Well, the government's giving their money back, so they're getting what they wanted in the end.

  4. MMMMMM by isotope23 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Smells like Freedom!!

    Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave,
    o'er the Land of the Free,
    Or the home of the SLAVE......

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
    1. Re:MMMMMM by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...And I'm proud to be an American,
      Where at least I know I'm free
      As long as I follow the party line
      And carry my ID...

      (With apologies to Mr. Greenwood)

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  5. Spin on name of Protect America Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If lawmakers were held to truth in naming, and agreed with Bruce Schneier's "Security and Privacy Arent Opposites" the act might be titled "Control America Act". But that would be a lot harder to gather support.

    "The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."

  6. Hoover, anyone? by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was no faster way to be fired (or worse) than to snoop into call records or facilitate illegal wiretaps, well intentioned or not.

    Bull*shit*, chief. Hoover wiretapped and bugged whatever and whomever the hell he wanted, and nobody dared complain- he was 'fighting' communism. Hoover did it entirely on the premise that, as director of the FBI, it was his purview. That's it. No fancy legal mumbo-jumbo. "I'm the boss."

    I hate the current wiretapping as much as the next guy, but let's not get caught up in "when I was your age, candybars cost 5 cents and the phone company didn't tap your phones illegally."

    Our phones have been tapped almost since their inception; all the changes is who's calling the shots, what "evil" group is being targeted, and whose definition of "legal" is being used.

  7. Actually, its... by Xelios · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the Pillage our Rights, Oppose The Exasperating Constitution and Tolerance, And Manufacture Evil Relentlessly to Inundate the Citizens of America Act

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  8. Telcos More Important than Security by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bush and his Republicans say that the FISA renewal is the most important weapon we have to protect ourselves against attack. But Bush says he'll veto it if it lets people sue telcos for helping Bush wiretap us, and his Republicans also have tried to stop the bill from being amended, or even debating amendments. And now these Republicans are even trying to stop FISA from being extended while the Congress debates what the renewed version contains.

    So Bush and his Republicans say that telco amnesty, retroactive immunity, is worth going without FISA at all. Even though they say it's our most important defense. So telco immunity, even though telcos would be immune under current law if they can show evidence that Bush assured them they were immune, is more important than our security.

    If you're a Republican, it is.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  9. Police State Coming by queenb**ch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can mod me as a troll or flame bait or what ever you like. The fact of the matter is that we're on the slippery slope toward becoming a police state. Stay with me...

    First the Patriot Act - no more do you have show probable cause and get a search warrant. The enforcement branch is now unfettered by little things like the Bill of Rights.

    Second the Emergency Powers Act - this allows martial law to be declared and turns the President into a military dictator if there's "catastrophic emergency" but utterly and complete fails to define what qualifies as a "catastrophic emergency"

    Third is this - Now they have the unlimited ability to spy on the average citizen.

    Am I seriously the only one who sees a pattern in all of this? Shall I start citing historical examples? Wake up people!!!

    2 cents,

    QueenB

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  10. Amend the constitution? by wurp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What good will amending the constitution do? The constitution already:
    • strictly limits the powers of the federal government. They basically only have legal power over:
      • the currency
      • inter-state disagreements
      • inter-national disagreements & treaties

    • specifically guarantees your right not to have to 'show your papers'
    • gives only congress the power to declare war (Congress may not delegate that power to the President)


    The real problem is that people don't give a crap about the constitution.
  11. Framing by srobert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I'm not sure which proposal has been dubbed the "Protect America" act, but I'll bet that it has, in all likelihood, nothing to do with protecting America. Who names these things? Karl Rove? Why are Republicans so much better at the art of framing the debate than the Dems are? It's the "Clear Skies Initiative", the "Death Tax", the "Patriot Act" LOL. Dems need to start renaming these bills to reflect what effects they really have.

    1. Re:Framing by luke923 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've heard this from the Democrats for years (at least since '04), but let's not forget that they've been doing it for years. Where the Republicans tell people that their opponents are unpatriotic, socialist/communist, and looking to take away your hard-earned money, the Democrats have been telling us for years that if you don't support them that we'd support the destruction of the environment, the kicking-out of the elderly out into the streets, the starvation of children, sweatshops, racism, or whatever Leftist viewpoint they were espousing. There's no difference, but the Republicans have just gotten better at it over the last few years. I'm not saying it's right, but tactics like these have been part of politics for probably centuries now. I think it's kind of chicken of the Left; after all, it seems to me is that the Dems are upset that the GOP is beating them at their own game and want to call such rhetoric unfair.

      --
      "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
  12. Not primarily a question about privacy by jandersen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although privacy is important, this is not a question about privacy, but about accountability. The sad truth is that even if they have to ask a judge about it, they will still get all the warrants they want - remember, this is about National Security (TM). But when you get a warant from a judge, a record is made of the event, by an authority that is independent (at least in principle), unless I am much mistaken, which means that in principle it will be possible to review the events later and possibly prosecute things like abuse of power etc.

    If there are no independent records, what is there to stop agents from spying on their neighbors? Only the personal integrity of the individual agent, and while most may be decent people, some aren't. And much worse than that, it will be a lot easier for powerful interest groups to infiltrate and abuse the system - do we want, say, Scientology to have agents in a position where they can tap our private communications? They aren't exactly know for their respect for their fellow humans, and there are many other groups exactly like them.

  13. Oh I'm so bored of this. by EddyPearson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You Americans.

    A few intelligent people will tell you in no uncertain terms that you MUST NOT LET THIS ACT PASS. They will explain that it'll smash your privicy into tiny peices, they'll say its up to YOU to speak to your representitive to get it thrown out. And you know what? You'll all do fuck all.

    Then four months down the line thousands and thousands of you will be back here, whinging about "yet another affront to our privicy" through a act they "sneaked through".

    You vote a Paranoid Texan Oil Baron into office, TWICE, so what the hell do you expect? The man's a joke the world over, so if I was you I'd try and stop him passing any laws (that will be very hard to revoke when you finally get a President with two braincells to rub together).

    Yet all you seem to do is COMPLAIN. Fucking do something about it.

    Oh yeah, and to the torrent of "Bush cheated his way in! Recounts were fixed" comments coming up, I say "What? Twice motherfucker? And if the country is REALLY that against him, why did it all come down to Florida."

    Your president is terrible, the American public are worse.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  14. You have the great advantage by jdickey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Australia still having a good government for the most part that apparently sincerely tries to do its citizens' bidding (as the continuing success of Prime Minister Howard instructs us), whereas American representative democracy has been replaced by a kleptocratic oligarchy - just like the old Taster's Choice commercials, only with far greater impact.

    Part of the problem in the States is that our form of government became fatally flawed the day corporations attained legal personhood since a) there's so little flexibility in the system and b) the people who benefit most from the status quo get to write the rules that keep them there. A Westminster system, on the other hand, has to be more responsive - your PM is still an MP representing real constituents, and the formalization of the "shadow" Government helps keep everybody honest while still providing leadership opportunities and publicity for the parties presently out of power. We Americans have been much too smug about the 'superiority' of our form of government for the last 50 years or so, even as it has been steadily, visibly and openly removed from our influence.

  15. Let's play 'name that bill !' by kitgerrits · · Score: 2, Insightful


    How about renaming it to the "TBBA: The Big Brother Act"
    or "TONFTAF: Things Old Nixon Forgot To Ask For".

    Every time you pick up your phone:
    "Thank you for using BellSouth.
    Your calls may be monitored for National Security Purposes."

    Don't worry, everything will be all right once it's under government control.
    Just like education, foreign policy and health care, the government knows what's best for you!

    In Republican America, the government tells the people who to vote for!

    --
    "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."