Slashdot Mirror
FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone
Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, writes "There are places where criminal activity is centralized: the backbone hubs located in hosting facilities across the country. All of the Internet's activity, legal and illegal, flows through these 'choke points,' and the feds, of course, are already tapping those points and siphoning off data. What Mueller wants is the legal authority to comb through the backbone data, which is already being siphoned off by the NSA, in order to look for illegal activity."
Back around the turn of the millennium, the U.S.'s monitoring of Internet traffic was a big topic of discussion on the Internet, spurred on by James Bamford's Body of Secrets and the European Union's report on ECHELON facilities. Except for some of us Slashbots, the public seems to have lost interest in this troubling phenomenon.
As has been mentioned already, the backbone operators can just just block encrypted data. We need to be more decentralized, like a jellyfish.
What?
It's not so bad that they ask. What's worse is our representatives usually give them what they want. Or when they take what they want illegally our representatives don't do anything about it. I blame Congress as much as anyone for our constitutional crisis.
Developers: We can use your help.
It is my sincere belief and hope that we are far closer to ubiquitous ad hock wireless mesh networking than most people recognize.
This sort of shit just brings it closer.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
George Walker Bush
Richard Bruce Cheney
Larry Edwin Craig
Oh, you wanted pictures, too. Okay. How about this one? The big banner says it all.
The people who have the most to fear from this are the politicians. After all, if the FBI can snoop it, guess what will inevitably follow? One word: Net-Watergate. Your political enemies won't cave in to your demands on that anti-terrorism bill? Threaten to expose that they visited hot-young-underage-nymphos-with-bags-over-their-heads-and-bushy-underarm-hair.com on twelve separate occasions in the last year.
Yikes.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
What was said in the article was:
search capability utilizing filtersIt has nothing to do with filtering the traffic on the network, which implies blocking/removing valid packets. It only means implementing a search capability that can use keyword filters (like searching in the gnarled mess for the word "Kalashnikov").
It is bad that they are dumping all this data for perusal later, obviously. But what they are asking for in the article is just a better way to search around in that data. It's not really anything new.
You make assumptions. Backbone operators won't block anything that stops commerce, and yes the bad guys will use the protocols and encryption methods that the good guys are using if they need to.
Also, by "backbone" the slashdot article writer was also being presumptuous. The FBI director was talking about stopping bad guys at their "choke point", and Ars Technica gave their own interpretation of what he meant by candidly assuming he meant an Internet backbone (or "hub"). Yes the US government can and does access these hubs (illegally perhaps, that is something the courts may not have the executive power to decide). The FBI also presumably wants access to the information that the NSA does (talk about information sharing between disparate government agencies!). Alas, however, a "choke point" could very well just mean the initial spotting (or IP address, gateway, etc) of a botnet virus that could be garnered from more liberal eavesdropping laws. Let's not make assumptions (in the article topic) and take them as is.
George Walker Bush
Richard Bruce Cheney
Larry Edwin Craig
Oh, you wanted pictures, too. Okay. How about this one? The big banner says it all.
The people who have the most to fear from this are the politicians. After all, if the FBI can snoop it, guess what will inevitably follow? One word: Net-Watergate. Your political enemies won't cave in to your demands on that anti-terrorism bill? Threaten to expose that they visited hot-young-underage-nymphos-with-bags-over-their-heads-and-bushy-underarm-hair.com on twelve separate occasions in the last year.
Yikes.
Or just claim they did. Remember, anything digital can be faked.Especially now that the Supreme Court has unanimously found that any evidence they uncover during a search, even if the original cause for the search turns out to be bogus, can be used against you.
Security (and in this case privacy) is only as good as the weakest link (which is almost always the people using these products). So for example, if you are a terrorist (or a democracy activist) wanting to use these anonymous resources to meet up with people in person, then you've pretty much blown your privacy.
Also, I don't see any reason why you couldn't use these technologies on a private (or semi-private) wireless mesh network. I can't see wireless mesh being in itself more secure than using something like Tor. It depends on how it's setup I suppose.
Has anyone used any of the variety of openVPN providers located outside the country? This is getting asinine and for just general web browsing I'm considering this. My concern is : Those openVPN places could just as easily be fronts for our feds or even worse, fronts for identity thieves, etc.
Besides, if this is allowed how long before RIAA, MPAA, etc tries to get authority to sniff packets. Or Comcast starts doing it on their own.
Which candidates would that be? Ron Paul? Dennis Kucinich? Maybe two or three of the candidates running for Congressional seats? The problem is that none of the major party candidates are running on that platform. As you correctly suggest, the two major parties have become opposite sides of the same coin, two wings of the same party.
No, the problem is in thinking that electoral politics is going to solve our problems. It isn't. It is fine to use it as a tool, but we also need to understand that the ballot is our weakest weapon.
That reminds me, I once had a (few) interviews with an "off shore" (and a rather large multi-billion dollar) bank (I never got the job, but it came damn close). They never marketed themselves as an "offshore" bank, but the more questions I asked during the interviews it became apparent. One question I asked about the bank's history is that they evolved from various European banks and financial industries during the Nazi era to elude government (Nazi) interference. To this day this bank (and I'm sure many others) are still active in keeping the flow of cash moving. When it all comes down to the bottom line money talks. History and more specifically economics will show that creating artificial barriers to commerce (however illegal that commerce may be) will never work.
How about "Al Qaida?" It's more accurate than "the muzzies," it's less wildly broad in who it blames for 9/11, and it's even shorter to type. But maybe it doesn't achieve your goal of projecting hate at the whole of the Muslim world
The choice was deliberate. Let's assume for a moment that the vast majority of muslims do in fact hate the west. They don't like our liberal society, they don't like that globalization is forcing a re-examination of their own values and the don't even have a good relationship with christian countries - having been fighting them for 1500 years. Let's assume that we all hate each and other and that all of the above is true.
Take all of that, and ask - is is really that big of a threat? That's what I'm asking... and I'm saying, the answer is NO.
This isn't like Soviet Communism toppling regimes left and right. There's no Muslim equivalent of a Red Army putting 200 million people under occupation or a Wermacht invading all of Europe. This islamic threat can't even project food and water in their own borders, let alone have an industrial complex capable of funding a modern army like the Germans, Japanese, or Russians could. In fact, militarily, if it came right down to it, all of the Islamic armies combined could not even fight France.
I mean, last time I checked, the USA has 13 large aircraft carriers, plus around 20-30 smaller ones, a bunch of nuclear submarines, guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and then, if we got really bored, we have a couple of Iowa class battleships that we could reactivate. Add to that a few thousand combat aircraft...
What's Iran going to attack all that with? They couldn't even decisively defeat Iraq after ten years of fighting and we did that in a month.
It's like the whole idea of some vast Muslim threat is utterly ludicrous.
This is my sig.
You speak for all of us, my friend.
Because we let this go on amongst ourselves for way too long. We were the ones that identified, as Reagan said, "The government is the problem"... we were the ones that argued against the IRS, and a host of other government regulations on the grounds that they were an attack on state and ultimately individual sovereignty and would lead to a police state.
But, wow, Bush gets in, we get into a war, and the next thing you know, we actually HAVE the makings of an institutionalized police state, and we just say "oh, ok, but its to fight the terrorists.." It's the weakest excuse ever.
Now, we know that its been almost a decade where the legal framework that created this monster was enacted in the wake of 9/11, and, we're in serious danger of institutionalizing it. It's crazy talk. I mean, guys at a train station with machine guns, live automatic weapons. WTF is up the that.
This is my sig.
It is rapidly reaching a point where we'll all be afraid of what we say and do on the net for fear it'll go in our little yellow folder in some government office and used against us when we dare go against the group-think. How sad is it when we are rapidly approaching the day when our world behaves like that joke from Airplane II "Four alarm fire make way for GLORIOUS new tractor factory!". No matter how offensive and disgusting the power grab the media will be touting how great it is for us and most of the country will go along with whatever the TV tells them to. But that is my 02c on the subject,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Must I remind all those who don't find stuff like this to be at least a little bit disheartening the following passage from what should be a very important document to all Americans:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What is really ironic in these times is that to many, "general public and espicially those in power", that my belief in and my quoting that passage probably makes me out to be some bad guy.
These days however if you were to believe in or propose such a thing that our government, the very government founded and established by this document would likely want to question you, harrass you, publicly ruin you, arrest you, deem you an enemy of the state and so on.
Does anyone believe the people of this country could ever rise up again or truly take a stand against our government?
I just don't think its possible anymore.
We will slowly loose our rights as is evident by what has been happening. People will become compliacent in things. People will continue to use and believe the "if you have nothing to hide" argument which in turn just means those that don't believe that (small minority) are simply quacks or nut jobs or criminals looking for a way to maintain their evil ways.
And of course if you even bring up the notion of forming a new government, well your just a non-american, non-patriotic, commie ass and if you don't like this country you should leave.
I suppose the only thing left is for the oil to run out one day, financial crisis looms, those in power and those running the country loose their money / wealth, the military machine and might crumbles with no oil. The people rise, and who knows. Sounds like a mix of movie themes there, who knows it might happen. Oil is pretty much the foundation of everything currently. Its sort of like what water is to life, oil is to industry and the life we all know. It would explain the middle east and why our politico's are so concerned with it the people there right? ;-) Could they be afraid of loosing this resource, and thus what their whole fortunes and futures are based on? Could that be why the prices are going up and these companies are making crazy profits? Maybe they are stock piling money for the inevitable day when it all dries up? And of course the more you can take from everyone else, the less they have and the harder their lives are to sustain and become increasingly depend on those with to give them a helping hand and thus willing to become obidient little lambs to their overlords.
This is especially true when you consider that CGI child porn that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing is illegal to possess (thanks to the PROTECT Act), and that people are being arrested for pasting pictures of children's heads on naked adult bodies:
It's worse than that. At least one person has been prosecuted for writing fiction with pedophilic themes. It's all just thoughtcrime, and pedophiles appear to be the backup boogeyman just in case the sheep stop being afraid on cue whenever their masters say 'terrorists'.
Yeah... Personally I don't see a problem with "Red light camera's" where I live. Using camera's to spot (serious) traffic violations is to me a good thing. It's a sad reality to where I live.
The problem with the UK is that camera's are everywhere and they are used to monitor everything. Yes, I admit to myself that I may very well be hypocritical in my statements (I personally don't want to be monitored, but I want bad people to be caught). There-in lies the contradiction.
One must always try to solve the root of the problem (why people are running red lights) as opposed to attempting to treat the symptoms. Unfortunately there are always political implications (if most red-light runners are 'visible minorities' for example, then this is a [IMHO an inappropriate] trump for 'racial' discrimination.)