US Wants Upper Hand In Battling High-Tech Bad Guys

coondoggie writes "The US Department of Justice this week said it was looking to boost the research and development of technology that could significantly bolster new forensic tools for digital evidence gathering. The DoJ's research and development arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) said it was particularly interested in tools targeting forensics for mobile cellular devices; cloud computing environments; VoIP communication and vehicle computer systems."

Comments

Yeah, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a pony.

Oh, no, they won't misuse this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's just keep giving the government more and more power.

There's a fundamental reason why tax cuts are good: starve the beast.

Keep illegal stuff off the grid.

[miffo.swe]

As more and more surveillence becomes adapted online less and less recources are put IRL. The smart criminals can even use this survaillence to their advantage. Some stuff you can do:

Let a friend take your phone somewhere while you bust in or do some other crime.
Plaster all kinds of activities on social sites that would make it impossible to do something illegal, while you are doing those crimes.
Send messages where you arrange a fake meeting.

Most important of all, never mention anything illegal while online, ever, anywhere. No matter what encryption you have its more or less useless if someone has access to your cell/comp/accounts. The sad in all this is that its crappy criminals that gets busted while the smart ones have the time of their life. Im also worried about it being misused for personal gain. If history is anything to go by, countless of innocent lives have already been ruined because someone with access to these informations used them for personal gain.

Re:Keep illegal stuff off the grid.

[AlecC]

You say that it is the "crappy criminals" that get busted. The vast majority of criminals (not terrorists) are stupid. The clever ones have worked out that crime doesn't pay. If you are clever enough to do all the things you say, which avoid you getting caught, you are also clever enough to make as much money legally as you would illegally, and you don't have the risk of prison. I am sure a lot of big business leaders would make great criminals. But why bother. Some criminals of course do succeed in avoiding the law for a long time - every bell curve has its tails. But overwhelmingly, criminals get caught because they are not clever enough.

And this is not coincidental. We buy enough law enforcement to make it not worth while clever people being criminals, while accepting that the stupid will be with us always.

Re:Keep illegal stuff off the grid.

[TheGratefulNet]

The vast majority of criminals (not terrorists) are stupid. The clever ones have worked out that crime doesn't pay. If you are clever enough to do all the things you say, which avoid you getting caught, you are also clever enough to make as much money legally as you would illegally, and you don't have the risk of prison

two kinds of sociopaths: those the end up on one side of law enforcement and those that end up on the other.

at times, it even may be hard to tell them apart, as their personalities and what makes them 'tick' are very similar, if not exactly the same.

we somehow accept this personality type as a leadership type and we ELECT them to office, too.

when was the last time a smart brainy nerdy guy was elected to a high ranking public office? we don't elect thinkers or builders. we elect NUTJOBS, primarily.

crime does pay. the code of justice is a maze and those who can navigate it well make out well. that's on BOTH sides, law enforcement and criminal. prison system continues to drain our otherwise useful funds (very profitable to lock people up in the US) and smart criminals avoid it all and find the loopholes that don't require 'murdering people' and such. they are still horribly evil people, but they know how to survive.

so again, crime does pay. need more proof? spend time with wallstreet guys and tell me otherwise.

Domestic Spying

[Doc Ruby]

If the "Justice" departments really wanted to battle "bad guys" in high tech crime, they would be targeting the highest crime rate domains with the biggest losses already. That is phishing and spam/virus networks that already take over $BILLIONS in IT personal property, using it to rob its owners and amass it into bot networks to attack others. Those crimes are committed largely by a relatively small group of crime gangs, largely concentrated in Asia (including Russia) which are also connected to large non-virtual crime in smuggling dangerous drugs, stealing property, counterfeiting brands, slavery, weapons trading (including WMD components), kidnapping, blackmail. The phishing/spam/botnet networks are probably the least bad of their crimes, and the greatest exposure to the public where they could be caught, with most of their traffic passing through the US even if the endpoints are all foreign. They're the obvious place for US law enforcement. Existing law allows US law enforcement to spy on them and catch them, while only small technology innovations might be necessary to do so - even without the PATRIOT Acts and other violations of the US Constitution.

What is required is that US law enforcement actually want to catch "bad guys". Then they'd have the means and opportunity to do everything they say they want.

But evidently they lack the motive. Their motive is to gain ever more power to spy on everyone, regardless of evidence or crimes. They've already been spying on telephone and email comms of every American they can fit on a hard drive, for years. What they want now is just bigger budgets for hard drives, for more secret police, and more laws that violate the Constitution and our rights so they can do so with impunity.

These secret police are the "bad guys".

Re:Wow!

[maztuhblastah]

Seriously, why must every attempt to increase security be viewed as the the end of all democracy & privacy?

Because, at least in the model of how the US is supposed to work, the response to a government calling for more power should not be "why not?" but rather "why?"

In this case, that's a very good question to ask. See they [the various three-letter organizations] already have vast powers of surveillance. They have all sorts of legal privileges allowing them to intercept foreign and criminal communications with ease, all contingent on the provision of a warrant (and thus probable cause). Hell, thanks to the last regime, they don't even need that much of the time, especially not to spy on a common citizen like you or I.

So in light of that, the response to a call for even better tools and even more leeway to spy on US citizens should be "Why?" Why do we need these tools? Why are the existing ones inadequate? Can you demonstrate that? What crimes do propose new tools will help you solve -- cite specific examples please, not just "it may us catch some bad guys".

And if the government can't come up with a damn good answer to "Why?", then our answer should be "No."