Slashdot Mirror
MIT Students' Gag Order Lifted
mytrip and several other readers let us know that a judge in Boston has lifted the gag order — actually let it expire — against three MIT students who discovered flaws in the security of the local transit system, the MBTA. We've discussed the case over the last 10 days. "Judge O'Toole said he disagreed with the basic premise of the MBTA's argument: That the students' presentation was a likely violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 federal law meant to protect computers from malicious attacks such as worms and viruses. Many had expected Tuesday's hearing to hinge on First Amendment issues and what amounts to responsible disclosure on the part of computer security researchers. Instead, O'Toole based his ruling on the narrow grounds of what constitutes a violation of the CFAA. On that basis, he said MBTA lawyers failed to convince him on two points: The students' presentation was meant to be delivered to people, and was not a computer-to-computer 'transmission.' Second, the MBTA couldn't prove the students had caused at least $5,000 damage to the transit system."
Why would exposing the MBTA's secrets be against the law? Realistically, that's all they've done, they put together a presentation on flaws in their system, security firms do this all the time. Nice to see a judge make the right decision.
MABASPLOOM!
Of course, this is a victory for the MBTA. They've managed to derail the conference presentation. Objective met.
We all know this will effectively bury the information. Bureaucrats understand that communication is impossible outside of face-to-face meetings. There's nothing that could possibly allow dissemination of this potentially damaging (read: embarassing) information now that the conference is over. Situation handled. Bullet dodged.
It looks like the judge made a pretty good call in this case. What he really rejected was the MTBA lawyers' assertion that it was an act prohibited by the law, and not exposing the agency's incompetence.
Really, bugs aren't fixed by just hiding them.
FTA:
MBTA said in documents filed with the court said that fixing the security flaws would take five months. ("Students have the ability to cause significant harm to the CharlieTicket system, during the roughly five-month window that remedial actions will require.")
Actually, the fact that they implemented a seriously flawed system is the problem, and the students' bringing it to light may suck for MBTA. The proper solution is for them to fix their system and, if necessary, sue the vendor for the costs.
No clue. Litigation tends to be the last refuge of the incompetent.
Yeah - real successful law that.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Lawyers for the MBTA claimed Tuesday they had proof the students had violated the law, but stopped short of specifying what they did.
Wow, I can just see these lawyers:
Lawyer: "They broke the law. We have the proof."
Judge: "What is your proof?"
Lawyer: "Um, they...uh, yeah, they just broke the law."
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Actually, if you had access to PACER, you could read the version of the presentation the students gave to the MBTA, including the secret key and a few other details that the MIT students were intending to leave out of the DEFCON presentation.
IOW, the information is already leaked, and it was the MBTA that leaked it.
I use the past tense above because I don't have access to PACER and I very much hope they got around to censoring that bit of info from the MBTA's submissions.
Query: What exactly was the flaw under dicussion?
Question: Why do you prefix your questions with query?
Statement : I find it sorta redundant.
That's an interesting argument...
Does a mechanic cause $5000 worth of damage when he points out that your axle is broken and needs replacement?
Can you cause damage to a system that has intrinsic vulnerabilities?
Obviously people taking advantage of disclosed vulnerabilities should be punished under applicable laws (as with simple copyright violation) for whatever damages they caused, but I tend to agree that you can't really pin damages on the discloser.
Now some other b.s. charge about reckless endangerment or speech issues, but probably not damages.
--Robert
Both the magnetic stripe card and the chip card used for electronic payment of public transport fares in Boston are flawed and allow several types of attacks which result in free rides. The hack of the chip card is an implementation of an older, less exploitative hack of the Mifare classic chip which is used in many public transport systems and other prepaid applications all over the world.
Win the battle, lose the war
I find people saying "Can I ask you a question?" is worse.
My response is often "You just did."
And of course they immediately say "Can I ask you another question?" to which you reply "You just did."
Finally they say "Can I ask you 2 questions?"
And having already identified yourself as a jerk you say "No."
They did not.
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3942
---- Liquid was a patriot ----
Here is evidence that a low UID does not insure a clear mind.
Maybe you should have said "frivolous" litigation is the last refuge of the incompetent"?
Litigation is one of pillars which holds up a Rule of Law and provides some path to fairness and justice in a free society. Considering the startling consolidation of social power in the hands of corporate ownership and authoritarian fanatics, you may yet see what it's like to live in a society without litigation. I guarantee you're not gonna like it, Ukab.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Your English is both clear and unmistakable. That may have been your problem. Next time, consider adding in an inane meme, such as:
"Imagine a beowulf cluster of MBTAs!"
or
"The MBTA is not a big truck. It's a series of tubes!"
Also, consider to add several speling and/or grammatical error. This will lend to the impression that you are either a caffeine-soaked systems engineer who has been sitting in front of a terminal for eighty straight hours, or a semi-literate American of the species cellarcola nerdus, both of which are held in high regard here.
Accordingly, the dialect best suited to effective communication on slashdot is lolspeak.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The bigger issue here is how they're going to determine which Charlie cards are legit and which aren't. They can't exactly tell someone with, say, $20 on a charlie card that their money's gone.
Someone could easily get a bunch of charlie cards, put random amounts of money between, say, $20 and $25 (random so that there's no clear pattern which cards are faked and which legit) and then sell to people on the street. $5 for a charlie card with at least $20 on it.
Heck, it probably wouldn't be that hard to convince the buyers that it was legit. "Hey man, my niece was staying here last week and put too much money on this card... It's got over $20 on it, I'll give it to you for $5."
You actually make a really good point; what about poison? If one were to discover a poison or pathogen that might kill a human, were it to be utilized or delivered, along with the reasons why and the possible delivery methods, no one would object to sharing that information with doctors.
Further, no one would claim that you were doing something illegal by spreading that information. Ironically, nor would anyone blame the human body for having that weakness; it wasn't planned for, developed around, whatever.
The fact of the matter is that the system is there, it's vulnerable, and we know how it's vulnerable. There is no convincing reason to try and quash that knowledge - if that is even possible. It is immaterial that it took bright people to figure it out. It is immaterial that without a fix money might be lost. What is material is recognizing things for what they are and reacting to the truth of the situation, not trying to maintain a status quo.
And that is why it's perceived that the MBTA is in error here; they're trying to live in a world where the exploit doesn't exist. But that world itself does not exist.
[Ego]out
The general tone here seems to be that the only security that is worth anything is unbreakable and it is the responsibility of the implementer to make sure any system is secure against attacks. Well, sorry but your front door lock is clearly defective by those standards. As is every single door lock the world over.
See, the security really only needs to be "good enough". What is that? Well, for a front door lock it is enough to keep homeless people out of your house. A determined thief might be able to defeat it in less than a minute but it isn't intended for that - the really determined thief might use a chainsaw to get in just as easily.
The transit system was designed to validate cards and the so-called "security" is probably more of a validation measure rather than a defense against attacks. The idea that attacking the transit system should not be done and should be illegal seems to have gotten lost. What has happened is now the door is open for anyone to duplicate this work and ride free.
So what is the transit system supposed to do? Revamp the entire system at a cost in the millions? Ignore it and hope nobody ever uses this information? I suspect neither is going to happen, but the most sensible outcome would be to replace automation with human ticket agents. Unlikely to happen. I'd guess that millions of dollars will be spent to implement an utterly new, slightly more secure, different system that requires every single piece of hardware and software to be replaced. Which will then be "cracked" within a few months and the details made available to everyone that wants to ride free. The endgame is probably closing the transit system because by its nature it cannot be made completely secure.
I doubt there is an attack-proof and cost-effective solution to the "problem" that is user-friendly and reasonable for a transit system. Why are we so hell-bent on breaking down society that we can't have people just use and pay for a transit system?
The funny thing is, without the gag order, it might not have appeared on /., the presentation might not have been posted in the comments and i would have never read it. So this kind of "gag" orders are fine with me, as long as it's "no talking" only. I can read myself :-)
Contempt of an invalid order doesn't stand, does it?
The Federal courts have made it quite clear that you must obey an injunction, even if it is ultimately overturned on appeal.
So you essentially have no freedom at all. Great.
This is why the courts should never be allowed to hear aspects of cases which hinge around the extents of the court's authority.
What's the objective difference between an unlawful order and one which is based upon shakey facts which are later found to be untrue?
To put it another way:
There must be 'facts', and there must be a law which allows an injunction given those 'facts'. What's the difference between an order which is issued without any basis in law, and one which is issued wrongly because the 'facts' were wrong.
If judges are free to issue orders which are in defiance of the law, and have higher courts uphold contempt judgements against people for disobeying those orders, there is no rule of law. Just petty tyrants with essentially unlimited power.
An example. A judge orders you to stop breathing. This is clearly not a lawful order. You appeal to a higher court, and 24 hours later sucessfully overturn it. In the mean time (let's assume that you don't choose to asphyxiate yourself), you've breathed many hundreds of times. The first judge finds you in contempt. The higher court supports the contempt ruling because you must obey an injunction until it's overturned and you go to prison. Either you're wrong, or the system is very broken. I hope it's the former (nothing personal).
FGD 135
I don't have an answer to the first question, but it's plain common sense that a person who has a vested interest in a decision going one particular direction should not be allowed to make that decision.
A judge has no vested interest in a decision going one particular direction or another. They're not paid by the case. If they find they don't have jurisdiction, they'll deny the application for the restraining order and move on to the next case.
I never said that they should be free to disregard them because they think they're unlawful, I say they should be free to disregardthem because they are unlawful. I agree that to allow someone to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because I didn't think it was lawful" and have the appeal judge reply "oh, well, if you thought it was unlawful that's ok then" would be a nonsense. But for someone to be able to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because it was unlawul, here's why..." and have the appeal judge reply "you're right, that was unlawful, no charge to answer" is plain common sense.
The Supreme Court addressed that issue in Walker v. City of Birmingham, holding that "in the fair administration of justice, no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. One may sympathize with the petitioners' impatient commitment to their cause. But respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law, which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom." In Howat v. Kansas the Court held "An injunction issued by a court of general jurisdiction and equity powers upon proper pleadings and served upon parties within the jurisdiction must be obeyed, even if erroneous and based upon an invalid statute, until set aside by orderly review."
And the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not, is that gag orders aren't automatically unconstitutional. You're always going to be able to come up with arguments as to why the injunction is invalid; it's up to the trial judge to decide how convincing those arguments are, and he or she is the one issuing the injunction. If you think you
It's a question of balancing; is it more important to promote the rule of law by requiring people to obey court orders until they're vacated, or is it more important to ensure that absolutely, positively nobody is ever imprisoned for a wrongful contempt charge. The courts pick the former, and I have to say I agree with them. You obviously believe in the latter, which is your right, and if you feel that strongly about it you should petition your representative to pass a law to fix the problem.
And though it may offend your sense of physics-like consistency, in City of Birmingham the Court implicitly recognized that where an injunction on its face is completely and transparently invalid (like your enjoined-from-breathing example), then you don't have to follow it.
I wasn't trying to argue that was in any sense a lawful order. Constitutional issues could get it overturned, but if defendant Smith is still bound to follow it until it's overturned, he's still going to prison or the morgue.
Or, far more likely, suffer a few fines. I think a Court is far more likely to find civil contempt in this case. And I'm not sure where you're getting the morgue from. But yes, in the end, it IS possible that someone may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing judge. Just like you may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing police officer. It's not a sign of a broken system unless you have no way to get out of jail. Fortunately, there are safeguards built into the system that will help you, for example habeas corpus writs. If you are enjoined from breathing, you may be