US Congressman Announces Plans To Probe Wikileaks

eldavojohn writes "Congressman Peter King (R-NY) is calling for a probe into Wikileaks with regard to the recent publication of half a million 9/11 pager messages. He has announced that he plans to have his Washington staff begin a preliminary investigation because Wikileaks' action 'raises security issues.' A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements."

Comments

"Raises security issues"?

[sopssa]

As pager traffic is totally unencrypted, it's not a surprise that someone might be intercepting them. Especially on Wall Street, like the article states, because it's high valued information. Of course, pagers are pretty much used only in USA... phone/sms traffic elsewhere is better encrypted.

So will government understand that all communications over the Internet too (browsing, email, im) have to be changed over SSL? Or will they do the normal thing; ignore the problem and just arrest and sue the guy who was intercepting that traffic and/or wikileaks because they're supposedly risk to security, along with demanding more government regulation on the Internet?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Red Flayer]

The realities of the issue don't make one iota of difference. King is a right-wing demagogue... he'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to his blue-collar Irish Catholic base.

The fact that pager signals are easily intercepted and are typically sent in plain text means nothing, nor does the concept of a free press to this man. He, like many career politicians, only cares for what serves his purposes.

Maybe I'm a bit overly cynical this morning, since I've only had one cup of coffee so far... but it's men like Peter King who would gladly usher in fascism if they stood to gain from it.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think you are being a little unfair.

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them. The gains would just be gravy.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[slim]

Let me translate for you: the "interception" here was by the government. The "security issue" is that somebody in the government leaked that info, or (less likely) that it was swiped by someone outside the government.

We don't know that.
Schneier on the issue: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/leaked_911_text.html

Anyone could have been logging all that pager traffic. Not necessarily government. With 2009 technology, it wouldn't even be expensive. In 2001, it would only be a little expensive.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[elrous0]

They probably collected it, along with a ton of security cam footage/phone logs/witness testimony/etc., as part of the 9-11 investigation. The real news to me is that the telco's were keeping such extensive logs of all their pager messages and that they were willing to turn it all over without telling the public about it (which would no doubt had been a pretty uncontroversial action if they had just been upfront about it). It points to a pattern of secrecy behind telco/government interaction that's way more disturbing than the information that has probably actually been shared.

It's like the secret rooms that the NSA has been installing at telco hubs. I think that people would have accepted that if the government had simply told the public upfront they were doing it and said "And here are some of the rules we're following to make sure innocent people aren't specifically targeted" (and knowing the CYA aspect of government, I'd bet they do actually have such rules). As for the argument that this would have somehow tipped off the terrorists, does the NSA honestly think that terrorists (at least the smart ones, who are the real threat anyway) don't ALREADY realize their calls are being monitored?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Shakrai]

Men like Peter King would gladly usher in fascism just for the warm and fuzzies it would give them.

He's already working on that. He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process. He thinks the Federal Government should have the right to put your name on a list and take away your right to keep and bear arms without any burden of proof whatsoever.

What's wrong with that picture?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Anonymusing]

If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men? It's not a crackpot conspiracy theory to accuse the government when they've the most likely candidate, especially when they confirm it for us by stumbling into action to investigate the leak.

If much of the traffic was from Wall Street, then it wouldn't be hard to imagine corporate espionage, or other kinds of snooping, where recording pager traffic would be a useful addition to other schemes.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[slim]

If not the government, then who? Saucer People? Mole Men?

A L0pht type who gets off on comms hacking?
Someone hoping to glean trading tips from the chatter of financial workers?

Yeah, it could have been the government. But it could easily have been anyone. As others have pointed out, the equipment necessary is cheap and non-specialized. This stuff was floating around the RF spectrum unencrypted. Note that the entire archive is only 13MB compressed. When I say it wouldn't be expensive, I mean you could log all pager traffic for a year, for well under $1000.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Shakrai]

Advocating for gun control measures in New York State is anything but "political suicide" I'm afraid. He'll sell this crap to his constituents as being "tough on terror" and the morons will eat it up hook, line and sinker. In the end the only thing that will suffer is our Constitution and civil liberties.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Red Flayer]

It is however illegal to snoop other people's pager traffic.

Source, please. Pagers use a radio broadcast, IIRC it is not illegal to snoop them, especially considering there is no security barrier to break. Plus no warrant is required for law enforcement to snoop them either, which lends credence to the idea that they are public broadcasts.

Why, I'll bet most of your phone calls are unencrypted...

Landline calls are privileged correspondence, not a broadcast (unlike pager signals). I have Verizon as a wireless carrier, so my cell calls are encrypted with CDMA. However, it's easily overcome, as you can spoof a tower signal and tell a cell phone to stop encrypting. That, however, IS illegal, as it is circumventing a security measure to prevent unauthorized access.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Shakrai]

I don't care what your opinion is regarding the 2nd amendment but I should think that you'd be smart enough to see in the danger in the Government having the power to take away your rights merely by placing your name on a list. No due process, no burden of proof.

This kind of fucking hypocrisy makes my blood boil. Many of the supposed civil libertarians in Congress have spent the last eight years screaming as loudly as they can about the lack of due process afforded those held in Gitmo. Now many of those same legislators line up to support legislation that grants the Government the power to strip away the rights of American citizens without according them due process. I'll ask it again, WTF is wrong with this picture?

Pot, kettle, black.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Nadaka]

What the hell are you talking about?
1: more people die from auto accidents every year in the US than die of fatal shootings.
2: more people die from tobacco related health issues (cancer, pneumonia, emphysema, etc) than of fatal shootings.
3: more people die from the seasonal flue than from shootings.
4: etc, there are more things than I can list that kill more people than guns.

The right to bear arms is this nations last line of defense against our enemies, and here is the key "both foreign and domestic". Nothing gives the police-statists a greater sense of security when sending out their jack booted thugs than a populace that does not have the means to fight back. Responsible ownership of firearms is not only a right, but I believe it is a requirement for a well functioning liberal democratic society.

If you really wanted to reduce the shooting crime rate in the US, I would suggest the following actions:
1: provide mandatory firearm safety courses in high school.
2: provide, free of charge, firearm safes and safety locks to all families owning firearms to prevent accidental use by children.
3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).

But hey, I am just one of those dirty freedom loving liberals.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[gtall]

Nice sentiments. However, have you ever listened to the CSpan call-in show in the morning? Have you ever wondered just how come what seems to be a significant segment of the callers have more than a screw loose? Those are the people you want to arm. They are about as well-adjusted as a squirrel after his third cup of coffee.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Email is also not encrypted, how you like all your email published on the net?

Actually, I assume that all of my email is discoverable and could wind up being published somewhere. For that reason, I am careful what I write, and I use PGP for the more sensitive things.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bin Ladin supposedly didn't realize that we were tracking him via his satellite phone until that fact was leaked by a member of the Clinton administration. He kept using it right up until the point that the story appeared in the press.

Lolz

it's also foolhardy to think that these types of disclosures don't have any real world implications.

It's even more foolhardy to be so credulous.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Nadaka]

I mentioned it twice because the few communities that I know have enacted mandatory carry did so only for men. I found this odd, considering women are far more likely to be victimized than men. Also see my other comment on mandatory carry above.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[GameboyRMH]

The Denying Explosives and Firearms to Evil Atrocious Terrorists Act of 2009.

AKA DEFEAT act. Short, unique, still has the T-word in it with a scary adjective. The only downside is that, while sugar-coating is no longer necessary these days, hilariously ironic backronyms (PATRIOT) are still preferable to descriptive ones such as this.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Sylver Dragon]

US CODE: Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, SubSection 311:[1]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Ok, I'm male, over 17 years of age and under the age of 45, not part of the National Guard, and Section 313 of Title 32 doesn't apply to me (it actually applies to the National Guard) and I'm a US Citizen. That makes me part of the "unorganized militia". Now, where's my fucking M-16?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[coaxial]

3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).

Isn't that also just as terrifying, if not more terrifying than a police state? Why should I have to worry about every time I walk into a bar, and there's some drunk asshole picking a fight with another drunk, that lead is going to start flying? I always thought a gun was a like condom, you don't bring one unless you plan on using it.

Whenever I hear about people arguing that everyone to start carrying guns, I think back to this incident in Texas back in the early aughts, where two suburban soccer moms with concealed carry guns starting shooting at each other during a road rage incident.

Random crime just doesn't happen all that often, and it always seems to me that people that want more guns, more "protection" are overly scared to walk outside their house.

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Kidbro]

Fair enough, and my apologies for the somewhat inflammatory remark.

Would you care to let me know what "communities" these are/were? I've never heard of such a thing, and find the idea curious, to say the least. Is/was the point of the requirement to fight internal threats (criminals) or external ones ("foreign" attackers)?

Re:"Raises security issues"?

[Tawnos]

I'm sure you're just trolling, because this issue was recently decided in Heller.

Waste of tax money

[siddesu]

What will his staff do, read the Wikipedia page about Wikileaks and report back? With senators having so much free time and resources, it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.

Re:Waste of tax money

[purpledinoz]

Wikileaks is hosted by a Swedish company. The US can't do shit about it.

Re:Waste of tax money

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?

Re:Waste of tax money

[sopssa]

Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

Re:Waste of tax money

[Grygus]

Isn't that what we said about Pirate Bay? Didn't those guys end up in jail without breaking any laws in their country?

Re:Waste of tax money

[siddesu]

To be fair, you forgot Poland. Don't forget Poland.

Re:Waste of tax money

[slim]

Saddam Hussein is dictator of Iraq. The US can't do shit about him.

Oh wait...

Yeah, but he had weapons of mass... ... oh, right you are. Carry on.

Re:Waste of tax money

[eldavojohn]

Yeah that worked so good for TPB.

Well, Wikileaks has survived attacks (even physical attacks). And the important distinguishing factor between TPB and Wikileaks is that Wikileaks is providing documents the public wants to know about ... they may be copyrighted and protected but they contain newsworthiness. In the United States (before the DMCA), that used to be enough to protect people trying to get the word out. Not anymore. But if another country chooses to uphold that sort of common logic about what should be protected to benefit the public than you're not going to have a TPB repeat.

And they can pull the domain, which is registered via US company Dynadot, LLC (and don't even get me started on ICANN)

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly. If those people are trying to stop you from disseminating information, you must be doing something right if not interesting.

Re:Waste of tax money

[Rob the Bold]

How many decades of our foreign policy have you slept through?

No kidding. If it turns out Sweden is responsible for this outrage, you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.

Re:Waste of tax money

[jambarama]

This is true and would break a lot of links. However, http://88.80.13.160/ would still work and -- more importantly -- revoking their URL would not only validate Wikileaks but also call forth the internet effect we call the Streisand Effect. This would probably be a godsend to the popularity of Wikileaks. Nothing builds street cred or grabs attention like religions, governments and service providers trying to knock you down repeatedly.

As a note, this has happened to wikileaks before, and the result was exactly as you describe. After the take down, news websites and forums exploded with the wikileaks IP address, and encouraged visitors to see what all the fuss was about. In addition, the judge had ordered the takedown of only wikileaks.org; wikileaks.net, wikileaks.co.uk, wikileaks.fr, wikileaks.cn, secure.ljsf.org, secure.sunshinepress.org, and dozens of other wikileaks websites with alternate names and identical content remained online.

Re:Waste of tax money

[Shakrai]

you can bet we'll invade Finland to punish them.

That didn't work out real well when Stalin tried it......

Re:Waste of tax money

[jittles]

Yeah, but he had weapons of mass...

Weapons of mass? Saddam was a Catholic?

Re:Second Flamebait

[theIsovist]

While I don't disagree he's a bigot, you do realize that your post is just as bigotted as statement, right?

cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic

[mwilliamson]

So what is the big deal? This data was sent out unencrypted from many transmitters all across the nation. It would have been (and still is) very easy to intercept. There is no data security. Those considering it a secure medium have simply been mislead. Congress, as a whole, is rather ignorant of these technical concepts. There are programs that use a soundcard for data capture, but for best results make sure and use the receiver's discriminator output, not the filtered audio out. Google for "POCSAG and FLEX decoding" for all the goodies and software you need to do your own intercepts. -Michael

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic

[drerwk]

Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do.
Or, do you believe that an door is unlocked door is an invitation to enter? I believe what you describe doing falls under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act. "ECPA prohibits unlawful access and certain disclosures of communication contents. " See also: John and Alice Martin http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/24/us/florida-couple-are-charged-in-taping-of-gingrich-call.html

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic

[Shikaku]

Just because you can do something does not make it legal to do.

This line of text is illegal because of a DMCA takedown notice retroactively placed by me and cannot be read by anyone.

Re:cleartext unencrypted nation-wide traffic

[Shikaku]

Right here

word of caution?

[horatio]

A word of caution: Congressman King has been known to make inflammatory and unpopular statements.

Word of caution my ass. Every congressman says dopey things that someone finds inflammatory and unpopular. Why is it pointed out here so specifically? How about leaving the bullshit sniping behind when posting the summaries there, kdawson?

Re:word of caution?

[L4t3r4lu5]

If I were to compare politians to Christians, King is the equivalent of Westboro' Southern Baptist. Controversial for the sake of getting his agenda in the papers.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Rob the Bold]

Blatant trolling. I'm not religious, but Mods, hello?

Thanks for the advice AC. I'll look into it. Oh, whoops, I just posted. Well, maybe next time.

Re:Second Flamebait

[Conchobair]

Forgot to login, but yeah that was me.

THIS STORY IS FALSE

[Dreadneck]

I just spoke with Congressman King's office and they were taken by surprise when I asked them about the Wikileaks probe. They said the congressman is NOT probing wikileaks. I gave them the url to the Newsday article and was told that the Rep. King's office will be working to sort out the matter.

Works for me.

[FatSean]

I've been thinking about a charity that provides weapons, ammunition and range time to poor inner-city people. Let them have the weapons they need to protect themselves, their families and their property. You'd think the NRA would be all over that but they seem not to care.

Re:This story is AWESOME!

[Dreadneck]

Yes, it does seem to be getting stranger by the minute. After speaking with the Congressman's office I emailed the author of the original Newsday article. He replied that the Congressman was quoted accurately. So, the question is whether Rep. King was telling the truth about his intent to probe WikiLeaks or not.

If not, then why grandstand for the cameras? If so, then why lie about it now?

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

Re:Heinlein was WRONG

[rmushkatblat]

Switzerland. Very nice place to live.

Re:This story is AWESOME!

[khallow]

The first I looked at is when Mr. King made his statement. He spoke on Friday. That fits the standard propaganda technique of making controversial statements at the beginning of a weekend and then have your staff play a game of "What he really meant was..." on Monday. Supposedly this technique was pioneered by the Nazis in the German build up to the Second World War. The virulently militaristic Friday speeches were for the German public, and the "What he really meant was..." corrections were for the foreign press in time for their Monday stories. This allowed the Nazis to present two different appearances.

Representative King probably uses this technique for similar reasons. He gets to talk tough without having to engage in immediate damage control (I bet his office is closed over the weekend). His staff can cover that when the beginning of the week comes around. Most of the US media probably has dropped the story by then.

Re:Heinlein was WRONG

[coaxial]

Yes, but if you've ever met a Swiss, you'd know they don't carry their army issued rifle, and they don't even like having one, because it's too much of a hassle to go to mandatory recertification.

  Mandatory ownership, let alone mandatory carrying, is not freedom.

Looting

[Voulnet]

"Frm: DKU@att.net Sub: Going to DC Txt: Well, night fall is here. Its time to do some looting. I need a microwave. Request???"

That is one bastard who didn't mind the catastrophe. Looting a microwave, WTF?