FBI Complains About Wiretapping Difficulties Due To Web Services

c0lo writes with news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is lamenting the difficulty in executing wiretaps because of "web-based e-mail, social-networking and peer-to-peer services." "President Barack Obama's administration is debating ways to deal with Web-based services not covered by traditional wiretap laws, including incentives for companies to build in surveillance capabilities, said Valerie Caproni, general counsel at the FBI. Many Internet services are not covered by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires traditional telecom carriers to allow law enforcement agencies real-time access to communications after a court has issued a wiretap order, she told members of a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. But Caproni told lawmakers she was not asking for expanded CALEA powers. And she stopped short of calling for rules requiring Web-based communication providers to build in so-called back doors allowing law enforcement access to their software, although she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.'"

Comments

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anything sacred?

Re:Awesome

[ehrichweiss]

My comments to them might be:
Cry me a river.
Build a bridge.
Jump in.

we should make it easier for them

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI needs to have easy access to everything - to keep up safe. All sites need to provide the FBI with all user data.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Pennidren]

The FBI needs to have easy access to everything - to keep up safe. All sites need to provide the FBI with all user data.

Why stop there? Open up your homes, people! Place your possessions on your front lawn, just in case the FBI needs to come by and make sure you aren't a 'bad guy'.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[jdpars]

It definitely sucks that they want access to communication they can't get to right now. It's difficult, and it should be, to want to let them in. I think there are good arguments for giving them the power, and good arguments against. In favor of it, it would allow them to catch more criminals more easily. I think that's an easy positive most people would agree with. The drawback, however, is that the system could be abused (Anyone have research on wiretapping abuse? I think that'd be fairly relevant). We put a lot more of our personal information on the internet than we do on phone lines. Here's what I think: restricting FBI access just because it's a different medium than phones is silly. If you're going to restrict their access, do it on the grounds that the access they get should be the same across all communication media. If they need a court order even to begin thinking about installing the tap, then they should need that court order for a phone line or tapping into a Skype account. But giving them full phone access and no internet access is only going to help criminals trying to avoid detection. Be consistent, that's all I'm saying.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Pull down
2. Bend over
3. Grab Ankles
4. .... Now just stay quiet. No wimpering! You are doing your country a great service.....Bitch!

Re:we should make it easier for them

[JustOK]

5. PROFIT!

Re:we should make it easier for them

[TheReaperD]

This is where the government's and courts' assertion that every law that currently applies in the US is null and void by adding the words '...with a computer' bites them in the ass. Irony that the reason the government took this position because they wanted to get around search and seizure, privacy and fair use laws.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Darkness404]

I think there are good arguments for giving them the power,

Such as? Despite what the media may try to represent, in real life there are few cases of "evil" people walking free because of legal protections when compared to the many people who have their constitutional rights abused because of this power. The right to expression is also followed by a right to secrecy just as the right to vote is followed by a right to secret ballot. Imagine how less free elections would be if everyone would know who and what you voted for (as ordinary citizens in elections, not as members of congress voting on bills). Just as the right to vote comes the right to be anonymous about what you vote for, so should the right to have secure and secret communication. Of course, just like you can tell everyone who you voted for, so can others hear, listen or read what you communicate, but the right to be anonymous (if one chooses) is needed to ensure a free society.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Runaway1956]

"I think that's an easy positive most people would agree with." No, I don't agree. "The Law" doesn't use the tools it has at it's disposal already, effectively. What makes anyone think that giving them more tools, more power, and greater jurisdiction will make them any more effective? Google for stories of repeat offenders. The cops KNOW, in many cases, just who the bad actors are in their jurisdictions. They KNOW who the repeat offenders are. But, the law is so screwed up, they can't keep the real predators off the street, even when they know who they are. Many of our most heinous crimes are committed by previously convicted lowlifes who spent all their time in prison studying and thinking about how not to get caught the next time. If the law - both the cops and the court system - actually start using all the tools at their disposal in an efficient manner, then they come back to tell us that their tools are insufficient for some purposes, THEN, and only then, will I listen to arguments that they need those tools. As long as the cops are busy chasing down kids for pirating music, and locking up idiot dilrods who make recreational use of drugs, I have no sympathy for them. Go after the murders, the robbers, the rapists, and the corporate criminals who rip off consumers for millions, only to be fined a few thousands. Screw the cops. The top cop in the country (Janet Napolitano) happens to be in bed with the corporate bigshots - run her out, and we'll talk about what ICE should be doing - as well as the FBI, DEA, and other enforcement agencies.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[moortak]

Leaving out the second part of that sentence alters the meaning. The are reasons for, like catching criminals, and reasons against, like creating an overbearing police state with no regard for citizen privacy. You can't do a cost benefit analysis if you won't look at the costs and benefits.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[SnapShot]

Yes, there is lots an lots of profit to be made on post-9/11 hysteria. This is one of the few times you don't need to put "???" in the underwear gnome's business plan.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Darkness404]

The entire point of my post was to show that there are no benefits to extending wiretaps and that conventional wiretaps by themselves aren't needed to catch true criminals because real evidence can be found elsewhere.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Phoghat]

The FBI needs to have easy access to everything - to keep up safe. All sites need to provide the FBI with all user data.

Because after all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Zancarius]

But giving them full phone access and no internet access is only going to help criminals trying to avoid detection. Be consistent, that's all I'm saying.

I don't know how your comment even got moderated insightful. With a court order/warrant, the FBI already has the power to install packet sniffers to monitor traffic, and an ISP that doesn't comply could certainly face unsavory punishment. As with traditional wiretapping, they need a properly signed court order.

Generally, though, it seems that the FBI just busts in to the data center and seizes machines to trawl them for illicit materials, logs, or whatever. But there's nothing stopping them from monitoring the traffic by court order either. Seriously, if they have the power to physically seize your hardware, they have the power to push the ISP into monitoring network traffic. This sounds instead like a power grab--or an overbearing extension of powers--not simply extending their efforts to a "different medium." It might also be laziness--rather than having to actually do real work, they want the ability to remotely monitor everything. That is something I think you should be vehemently opposed to.

Just imagine if this backdoor were conveniently broken in some difficult to discover manner and an adversary were able to collect details like credit card numbers, back accounts, etc., all because of some stupid government regulation^Wencouraged feature that required^Wrecommended remote access for the FBI in all web software.

I can't see the Apache foundation following along with this, though, much less any other open source foundations.

America, land of the oppressed, home of the paranoid.

Re:we should make it easier for them

[Zancarius]

The entire point of my post was to show that there are no benefits to extending wiretaps and that conventional wiretaps by themselves aren't needed to catch true criminals because real evidence can be found elsewhere.

Exactly. I don't think you took it out of context, and if someone was afraid of that, that's what the "parent" link is for--read the whole thing rather than pasting in the entire comment. It's not rocket science, although I guess this is Slashdot...

I think the entire thing is an absurd power grab. The FBI can already seize hardware or enforce the installation of packet sniffing hardware in cases where they're trying to catch someone (although I've not heard of this in years--maybe they've become too technophobic or lazy, neither of which can be fixed by passing new laws). In fact, I seriously think this entire debate is absolutely idiotic. Someone is worried that the FBI doesn't have the "same" power to monitor online activities, never mind that they have the power to physically and forcibly obtain hardware regardless of who it affects (think the FreeDNS issue a few days ago)--but we're worried about packet sniffing, which they can already do? Nope, this isn't about giving the FBI equivalent access. It's about giving the government more than they need.

The absolute last thing we need is for the government to have a free pass to monitoring everything we do online. Sure, they may claim they won't abuse it unless the site is trafficking in illicit materials, but imagine how useful it would be to track details about political dissenters...

I'm sure no past president or previous administration has ever willfully abused the FBI's access to certain materials in order to keep an eye on political opponents before. Ever. (That was sarcasm for those of you who can't detect it in text.)

What about encrypted communications?

[BitterOak]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

Only criminals use encryption. If you're not doing anything wrong, what is there to hide?

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Isaac Remuant]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

Only criminals use encryption. If you're not doing anything wrong, what is there to hide?

Nothing, of course. Unless you're part of the goverment. In that case, you're hiding information to protect your citizens.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're being sarcastic..

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

re-engineer? Skype already has versions that can be tapped (mostly used in China but the work is already done).

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[FatdogHaiku]

My fear is that some rule about a back door goes into effect, then open source software is deemed a risk because you can't hide a back door. So now they need new rules for what can be open source, of course many software publishers will want to help with those rules...

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[jbolden]

Its fairly easy to design something to do what skype does. You will quickly have alternatives that are encrypted....

As for personal use encryption they tried that in the 1980s and we fought it and won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they could already decrypt skype..

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Skype has been on the Infandous Imperial Elite's "Must-Crack" list for a couple of years now. German Intelligence tried first and soon gave up. Then the DoD's DARPA publicly offered a US$50K reward to the black-hatter - *any* black-hatter - who could ably provide *any* Man-In-The-Middle (MitM) solution at all, sans physical access to the box in question.

See http://theregister.co.uk for chronology and related details; just search the site for "Skype" and there you are. Seems Dynamic Key Encryption, when executed on-the-fly in realtime, is one tough nut to crack hands-off. As for Skype Corporation ever being Judicially Forced to backdoor the product:

1) If it were so ordered, well there goes Skype Inc's entire business model. I reckon the matter'd be tied up in court for a while afore any breach i' th' hull ever be allowed, Cap'n. ;)

2) Trust our own homegrown Practical Privacy Providers to come out with a block-um-out add-on widgit right quick anyway, if ever 1) above be implemented. (It's only 65536 ports and there is little likelihood of hardship-in-identification, methinks.)

On reflection, this rises to mind: A really healthy resistance effort, once sparked and fueled by such intrusion attempts as this hypothetical instance, just might simultaneously stop the tap-stream, spoof the outbound IP addy *and* spue forth a fine smelly-brown stream of plaintext keywords of the "Spook-bait" persuasion. (Virginia Langley knows the vocabulary very well, of course.) Indeed: As the Imperial Criminal USAn Police Globalization State attempts each additional intrusive advance in its greedily tyrannical drive to Control Just Everything, more and more able and goodhearted Sovereign Forced-Underclass Citizens the world around shall surely take up the Rallying Cry from Heaven: "DON'T TOUCH MY JUNK!!!!"

Sorted! I'll get me coat now. And that is all! 0{:-)o

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Travelsonic]

Privacy on any level is about concealment, whether necessary or un-necessary, for good or bad. Youi can't have something and nothing to hide at once, shit, given human nature - and the nature of privacy, nothing to hide is impossible to begin with, but the idea of having something to hide and nothing to hide simultaneously, making P ^ ~P = true when logically impossible, makes my brain explode.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anthony Mouse]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

They can't really stop personal use encryption at this point. Skype isn't fully open source, but that doesn't mean there can't or doesn't exist open source P2P encrypted communications software. And even if the official maintainers of that software were required to add a back door, the idea that no one would distribute a version with the back door removed is laughable. It's like trying to suppress DeCSS. Moreover, OpenSSL and OpenSSH are BSD licensed -- it's not like adding strong encryption to a communications app is rocket science. (Although for crying out loud, can somebody please fix the OpenSSL documentation?)

I would also expect Skype to strongly resist efforts to make them add a back door, if only because of the damage it would do to their reputation. Everybody knows that back doors are truck-sized security vulnerabilities that tempt black hats like chocolate cake tempts Michael Moore. People use Skype for confidential communications because it appears to be secure. Make it notoriously insecure and an alternative will appear which people will use instead.

Of course, that isn't to say that this proposal is puppies and unicorns and nobody needs to oppose it. People who demand good security -- including criminals -- will use software that has good security and no back doors. But there is still a need to protect innocent fools from organized criminals. Making the software that the average fool uses substantially less secure has the potential to make organized criminals much more effective -- remember, most people aren't terrorists, so intentionally creating a vulnerability that impacts both stupid innocents and stupid criminals will disproportionally impact the innocents because there are more of them.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anthony Mouse]

tap-stream

You seem to be assuming the way they would implement this is to have your client send a second copy of the stream to the FBI. Certainly that is the easy way to do it, but also the trivially detectable way -- the app is using twice as much bandwidth as it should and half the packets are going to some server in Virginia.

The smart way is to combine ISP-level wiretapping in with a back door that CCs the encryption key to the Feds so that they can decipher what they capture from AT&T. Skype already has to open a third party connection to look up the IP address of the peer you want to call, and it's pretty easy for a couple dozen bytes to get lost in the noise.

If you really want to be sure you better have the source and a binary compiled by someone you trust (like yourself).

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[_ivy_ivy_]

security vulnerabilities that tempt black hats like chocolate cake tempts Michael Moore.

This is clearly a nominee for the metaphor of the award.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the FBI make headlines not too long ago for not quite demanding but not quite asking nicely for crypto backdoors?

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[icebike]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

Any time someone offers you an encrypted service where you don't have the option to set your own encryption key
you need to view it as encryption as a minor inconvenience to eavesdroppers, and nothing more.

Nothing on any service like skype can assumed to be truly private. Best you can do is encrypt your email with
some strong encryption and hope your correspondent does as well. A wiser choice might be to never commit
to a computer record that which you may need to keep secret.

You don't need to be involved in any nefarious stuff to use encryption. I've ordered several things via emai
with credit cards, and I always send it encrypted.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read your own link you'll see that that was in the early/mid 90's, not the 1980s.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[icebike]

Yes, there were stories about Skype Encryption being Broken.

How true this is remains debatable because no one has yet demonstrated decoding a voice message.
Some reports suggest that the most you can do is determine that the content IS Skype, but not what is in it.

With enough computer power it might be easier to just decode the packet stream by brute force.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[ChiRaven]

Actually, if I remember, there WAS a serious proposal to that effect back in the 1990's, when a federal law making anything more than a certain level of encryption (I believe it was 128-bit, but I could be wrong) illegal, and providing for penalties for anyone producing or distributing software that contained any such ability.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not about what you've got to hide, rather it is about what they want to find.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[icebike]

tap-stream

You seem to be assuming the way they would implement this is to have your client send a second copy of the stream to the FBI. Certainly that is the easy way to do it, but also the trivially detectable way -- the app is using twice as much bandwidth as it should and half the packets are going to some server in Virginia.

Agreed.

There is already evidence that taps at ISPs and carriers have been used in the past, so as you suggest, placing backdoors in the client itself would be the hard way. Even if they did, what percentage of users would even notice twice the outbound packets were being sent? Especially if it were turned on only for parties under investigation.

The people who would be doing this probably have enough computer power to capture a stream and decrypt it at their leisure.

I speculate it might be easier to know when you arrive at a proper decryption key on a voice stream than it would be for a text stream.
Speech. Perhaps (a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkeFHT96TUA>Serene Branson simply was a decryption fail.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[icebike]

oops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkeFHT96TUA

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also IPSec. You don't need to build encryption into any app. Just setup IPSec and you can use plain, old SIP with asterisk.

Keep in mind that encryption is both authentication *and* encryption and IPSec provides for both. Authentication is to verify whom you are talking to and encryption is to prevent eavesdropping regarding what you are talking about. Quite simple, really.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[SheeEttin]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps?

Ahahahahaha! You kill me, you really do.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Skype#Security_and_privacy

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[mabhatter654]

But that's not really the case. Privacy is about not having your personal information collected all the time.. about somebody not snooping on you. There's a difference between a public Facebook post and somebody downloading ALL the Facebook posts from you and your friends from all time. Until recently collecting that much data on somebody was time intensive and quite obvious... and was considered illegal in many places. Even for law enforcement as a type of harassment because it was used for social "blackmail" when the lawman didn't have a case.
Now that all the stuff is available with and SQL query away, law enforcement wants it all. Of course 90% of this stuff is circumstantial at best in a criminal case.. but that's not really the point. It's about POWER. About being able to tell some guy investigated for taxes that his wife has a girlfriend and his daughter is pregnant to get a better deal in court... exactly WHY we don't allow that stuff admitted in the first place.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[localtoast]

You must not be talking about setting it up with Windows. Worst experience ever.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[whoever57]

You don't need to be involved in any nefarious stuff to use encryption. I've ordered several things via emai with credit cards, and I always send it encrypted.

Encryptions is ubiquitous today, you just have to:

1. Log onto your bank's website.

2. Use Gmail with default settings.

3. Order anything online.

4. Use a VPN (many, many company laptops are configured with VPNs)

5. Use SMTP-TLS or POP-TLS.

etc.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[whoever57]

Privacy on any level is about concealment, whether necessary or un-necessary, for good or bad

Exactly, Unless you conceal a large portion of your activities, then the presence of concealment is like putting a large arrow on your really private activity, saying: "INVESTIGATE THIS".

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[QuantumBeep]

Yes, th...

Naw, dead serious. I swear to god.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[MichaelSmith]

The fundamental problem with encryption is key negotiation. You don't get any security at all if the attacker can listen in when the session is being set up.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[davester666]

And what exactly makes you think the version of skype that the rest of the world uses is any different?

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[jbolden]

If you read your own link you'll see that that was in the early/mid 90's, not the 1980s.

You are right the battle continued into the 1990s. But the heart was in the 1980s. Clipper was sort of a compromise before the government lost all control of encryption.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[KlomDark]

>If you're not doing anything wrong, what is there to hide?

Wrong answer: If I'm not doing anything wrong, then are you doing looking?

Everybody's got something to hide, but most do not have anything illegal to hide. Every person should have the right to at least some data that's completely private to all others. Seems like it is a basic human right. At least until they develop direct brain-reading, which probably isn't too far from now.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is fairly obvious that Skype already provides a backdoor. However, this is hard to prove, because the Skype executable is essentially a piece of malware that uses all sorts of code obfuscation techniques to hide what it is actually doing. Reverse engineering it is difficult and backdoors that arent used are very hard to detect.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[HungryHobo]

"but most do not have anything illegal to hide"

actually just about everyone has something illegal to hide.

paraphrasing from "Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane but

"there isn't a man woman or child on this earth who hasn't violated the united states tax code"

And pretty much everyone has probably committed enough crimes to put them away for life if they were watched closely enough or at the very least bankrupt them with fines.
Ever spit on the sidewalk? always break the tax seal on your package of cigarettes properly? jaywalked? etc etc etc

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing, of course. Unless you're part of the government. In that case, you're hiding information *about* your citizens.

FTFY

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[nurb432]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps?

Yes. As would any open source application, or it will be deemed illegal to possess/distribute/etc. ( you can kiss FreeNet good bye.. )

This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

As we know it, yes. End it, no. ( banks, etc will still have it to keep out the 'badguys' )

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems Dynamic Key Encryption, when executed on-the-fly in realtime, is one tough nut to crack hands-off.

Anything in realtime is tough. That doesn't mean it can't be decrypted, it just has to be known who to listen in on beforehand. Then the decryption takes longer than the conversation did.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[GameboyRMH]

1) If it were so ordered, well there goes Skype Inc's entire business model. I reckon the matter'd be tied up in court for a while afore any breach i' th' hull ever be allowed, Cap'n. ;)

I doubt it, most Skype users probably don't give a damn about the security of it. They'd go right back to POTS if it could compete on price, quality and convenience.

I assume Skype to be insecure because the calls are routed through a server I don't control, and it uses a closed encryption scheme that could already be backdoored for all that I know. US law enforcement could easily ask for access and just put a gag order on Skype. But I don't need secured communications for idle chat with relatives anyways. If I wanted security I'd make an encrypted/VPN'd SIP call between trusted devices.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[GameboyRMH]

People use Skype for confidential communications because it appears to be secure.

LOL, idiots...

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[GameboyRMH]

LOLWUT?

Here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[GameboyRMH]

I wouldn't call a heavily obfuscated executable malware. I would call Skype for Windows adware/nagware though. The recent Windows versions are annoying as hell. Linux desktop clients still seem to be nag-free though.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[GameboyRMH]

As we know it, yes. End it, no. ( banks, etc will still have it to keep out the 'badguys' )

Sounds like an improvement from today's situation then? (I wish I was joking).

If they try to push this on open source tools it'll be a joke, like that '90s textbook code example that could be turned from legal to illegal encryption by changing the value of a variable.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

German Intelligence tried first and soon gave up.

Funny, that's not the way I remember the story - I think "Germans have been listening to Skype traffic for years" or something similar was a Slashdot headline a year or two ago.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I remembered wrong.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

to protect your citizens

The rest of the time as a member the government I personally prefer to play terror stat attack with other governments over our citizens. The game is played usually bilaterally. The governments start by shuffling their population records or any facsimile of such into a random selection of their fine citizens. The starting government, that is the one with most nukes, selects from the first citizen register file a property of the citizen which contributes least to the fact that the citizen is an evil terrorist. The government asks for other governments about the corresponding stat of their citizens. The lowest terror inducing stat wins and the winning government gets the citizens of the other governments for rapid internment. The government who loses all their citizens to other governments first loses and the corresponding country is split among the other players after the losing government members have been put under administrative detention in the winning countries. The government who gets all of the citizens of the other governments wins. The game can be played again only after a sufficiently apocalyptic event has occurred.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real issue here is they want an easier way to tap. I'm very sceptical of any proprietary solution. You have to at least be able to vet it for it to be secure. It may not make it secure in and of itself of course. Just because more eyes can look at it doesn't mean they will. However it has been shown in a number of cases that code being available does raise suspicion. The Germans forced the insertion of a back door essentially into free code that was able to identify users at one time and it wasn't that big of a project. Users noticed and it made the headlines right away. The other thing with free software is at least the coders have to be conscious of the code they are writing. Being examinable by others forces you to scrutinise the code more. It isn't to say it is necessarily better. However it probably is even if nobody else is looking at it.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Skype have to consider the wishes of the FBI at all ? Isn't it still owned by a NON-AMERICAN company ? One the FBI and the US Government have NO JURISDICTION over ??

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a randomly-generated key is used for each session, the overhead needed to store content and the associated key would bankrupt any provider. The alternatives are to provide content before encryption. Again the overhead is almost unimaginable. The problem with so-called back doors is sooner or later somebody sells the details of the back door. Then the buyer can spy on business competitors or other governments or whoever. And, do all that for some time without detection.
I agree with your observation on the source and compilation.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[CAIMLAS]

Most people have something illegal to hide. Almost without variation, you're guaranteed to do something illegal once a week, even without knowing it. A couple examples:

* A piece of trash falls from your vehicle.
* Your dog gets lose and destroy's someone else's property.
* An emissions-related component on your vehicle fails.
* You sell a personal item (eg. at a yard sale) and do not report the proceeds to the IRS.
* You walk across the street or perform a U-turn where there is an obscured sign prohibiting it.
* You do not fully stop at a red light/stop sign.
* A friend sends you an audio file or you borrow a burned movie.
* You wait for more than 12 hours to shovel your walkway after a storm.
* You don't cut your lawn every week.
* You miss the posting for the speed limit decrease and go 10+ mph through a school zone.

These will get you in a varying degree of trouble if you get caught (and the prosecuting party actually cares). However, one thing holds true: if you get caught and ticketed/prosecuted, it can cost you hundreds of dollars. If you avoid the repercussions/can't pay up, it can cost you thousands, jail time, and quite likely the ability to be employed again, ever.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[mldi]

Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.

It would break end-to-end encryption, period. The whole point of end-to-end encryption (like https in your browser) is to ensure no MITM attacks, and that only you and the other party know wtf is going on. I sure as hell wouldn't bank online anymore knowing that shit isn't really secure. That's just retarded. But hey, nothing like enabling thousands of ID thieves in order to "protect" us, right?

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[MichaelSmith]

Say you are talking about using PGP. A wants to send a message to B. To do this A need a public key for B. B could get on a plane and pass it directly to A however this won't work well enough on a large scale so A probably gets the key from a key server S. Unfortunately evil government G controls all the ISPs in their country. They have built their own proxies for important external services so the request from A for B's public key goes to the government proxy SP which sends back a key for which G has the private component. B may or may not get the message. It doesn't really matter because A is already getting the rubber hose treatment from employees of G.

Re:What about encrypted communications?

[GameboyRMH]

So you're talking about a government intercepting and manipulating traffic? You use host authentication for that. Say A gets the key from key server S using an SSL connection verified by notaries (such as accessing a web page via HTTPS using Firefox with Perspectives). The notaries could even be more secure if they ran on a Tor-like network.

Bohoo

[vvaduva]

Oh cry me a river!

Re:Bohoo

[ColdWetDog]

Oh cry me a river!

You'll need an Environmental Impact Statement before you can do that, citizen.

Re:Bohoo

[vvaduva]

That's worth several lolz but then you'd have to deal with OSHAs noise level regulations... :)

Re:Bohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my Allah, Jesus, God, and his prophet Mohammed, that was funny. *gets dragged away for violating separation of church and state*
(state being defined as anything that ever happens in the state that someone might possibly see and object to)

Re:Bohoo

[GameboyRMH]

Not to mention that lolz are similar to lulz which is a communication method used by only by cyber-terrorists! You'd catch the attention of the guys at Pine Gap pretty quick!

Re:Bohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

These comments are defamatory. You'll be receiving a C&D shortly. See you in court, and bring your checkbook.

Re:Bohoo

[CAIMLAS]

You could do that, only if you could past muster for the zoning permit on your lolz.

Of course, then we're back to the paperwork, and the EPA is going to throw a bitch about that.

You may as well just stay home and watch American Idol.

Fuck that

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we just skip to the part about Thought Police and having mandatory spinal cord antenna?

Re:Fuck that

[FatdogHaiku]

Shhhh! The spine IS an antenna, dammit.
That's what makes the tinfoil hat so important.

Re:Fuck that

[MacGyver2210]

Being as serious as I can about the matter, this isn't entirely impossible.

If we can reverse-engineer the spinal neurotransmission protocols we should be able to use the larger of the spinal nerves to conduct a TEMPEST-style interception of their transmissions in real time...

Too bad the human nervous system is mostly black-box technology, or I could just download the datasheet.

Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Man On Pink Corner]

If police work is easy, it means you're living in a police state.

They're here to serve us, not the other way around. History shows that when you give the FBI increased investigative powers, those powers are used not to prevent the next 9/11 or OKC bombing, but to spy on dangerous subversives as Martin Luther King and John Lennon.

With power should come responsibility, or at least accountability. The FBI has shown neither.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Seumas]

Now that they don't need a warrant to wire tap, they want the actual process of executing the wire tap to be just as mindlessly easy and convenient. After all, why shouldn't it be? As it stands, there is absolutely zero value given to civil liberties and especially privacy so why put any hurdles between them and the people they want to violate? Hell, maybe once there is truly zero impedance from A to Z in tapping anyone at any time for any reason, immediately and without effort . . . just maybe people will get pissed enough that they attack the real problem, which isn't making sure it's difficult for them to execute on the technical end, but very difficult to acquire tapping rights on the legal end, to begin with.

Of course, by then, it's probably also too late.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, folks. This is now OBAMA'S FBI. Where are all the cries of, "Fascist!" and "ZOMG Nazi!" now?

Gitmo still open? Check!

US Gov't still conducting warrantless wiretaps on citizens? Check!

US Gov't still in bed with mega corporations? Double check!

Still bogged down in 2 sandy 3rd world shitholes populated by diaperheads that hate us? Check!

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[countertrolling]

With power should come responsibility, or at least accountability. The FBI has shown neither.

A story that goes back to ancient times. Can anybody point what has changed since then? They have that power because the people give it up with the hope that they can enjoy such power themselves in some fashion. The FBI and other authorities reflect our own vicarious desires.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[JustOK]

Bush is still clearly and secretly in charge. What better cover than the bumbling idiot he appears to be to most of the world?

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[mabhatter654]

Except they're starting to essentially drown in all the data they can legally get... and still not get anything MEANINGFUL. There's too much focus on CSI-style smoking gun evidence hidden in techno babble...

The problem now is that it's going from hearing you when you're under investigation, to collect from everybody and review it for faults later. Just about every thing like Toll cams etc that "won't affect privacy" end up used for just that purpose.. and just about any beat cop can use it to stalk the girl they want with the stuff whenever they want.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Legion303]

"This is now OBAMA'S FBI. Where are all the cries of, "Fascist!" and "ZOMG Nazi!" now?"

All over the place. Aren't you paying attention?

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Seumas]

They've been doing that for decades, though. They're just applying it to the rest of society, instead of some guy's office or some kid's bedroom. Every time there is any criminal (or civil, for that matter) litigation regarding infractions where computers are involved, they swoop in and grab everything - related to the actual issue at hand. Then they filter through it at their leisure, later.

I give it ten years before anyone providing an online service of any kind (web site, email, ftp server) is obligated by law to turn on remote system logging for all services, so that it is stored in some giant government database where they can access any logs for anything at any time. All they have to do is insinuate that another 9/11 is inevitable to roll it right on through.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Spad]

Here's a tip; when trying to make what is actually an otherwise reasonable point, the use of phrases such as "sandy 3rd world shitholes populated by diaperheads that hate us?" doesn't really help your case.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been listening? There are plenty of cries of fascism, especially in the /. echo chamber.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[swalve]

I agree with everything except this: the police don't serve "us", they serve society. It is not the policeman's job to change your tire or let you off with a warning because you pay his salary. It is his job to enforce the laws passed by the legislature (including the ones about protecting rights of the accused). You can't blame them completely for *trying* to cross the line. The legislature and the courts are the oversight for them, and to the extent police abuse their power, the courts and the legislature are equally culpable for letting it happen.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[Anonymous Coward]

This might come as news to you, but /. is a very small subset of the world's population. Just about everyone else is still metaphorically gagging on Obama's cock and congratulating themselves on overcoming their racism to make history, no matter how much that new history looks like the old history.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[CAIMLAS]

Er, actually, no. I want my police officers to sit around doing nothing all day.

I don't want tickets for petty infractions. I don't want them to have to memorize dozens of code books, statures, and laws.

The laws should be simple so anyone can understand - and adhere - to them.

Police should basically serve the function of fire fighters and street lights - but for the offensive acts of others and the disorderly behavior of miscreants (eg. drunk rabble rousers), not fires and darkness.

If police work is overtly difficult, it means one (or more) of three things:

1) There are too many laws and regulations on which people can be penalized
2) There are entirely too many assholes out there who do inconsiderate things that cause non-trivial hardship for others (think: someone who parks their truck in an intersection to make a delivery)
3) Society as we know it is collapsing on account of violence

I see no reason why your average police officer should be burdened of paperwork that a clerk is. Yet, they are.

Re:Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy

[sznupi]

That might be as well a citation / embracing of quite common sentiment... And from did "sandnigger" even come from?

On behalf of all blackhats of this planet

[Opportunist]

allow me to say this:

"PLEASE! WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR IT!"

Ok, on a more serious note, how long do you think 'til such a backdoor will be sniffed out and abused by people with even less concern for constitutional rights and fewer qualms to abuse such a privilege?

Think about it for a split second. What qualities would such a backdoor have to have? First, it would have to work with all such providers, every single network, and you may rest assured that it will have to follow some standard and possibly even be accessible with a single set of login credentials. And second, the provider would of course not be allowed to monitor or even log such an access to keep them from possibly noticing such an access (of course, only to make sure that no "inside man" could warn the bad guys).

Can anyone, or everyone, here see the possible value for MUCH worse guys?

Re:On behalf of all blackhats of this planet

[iter8]

Single point of failure. If the FBI can get in the backdoor, so can lots of others.

Re:On behalf of all blackhats of this planet

[Anonymous Coward]

I know other nation's would love this. Not only would the FBI have access, but as soon as any decent hacker gets access, every nation that has any spying interest on the US could gain access to personal conversations, business dealings, business transactions, maybe even certain government info that goes over the wire.

Hell, we think patent trolling is bad. Now it'll be who pays off who to gain access to which routers to spy on your business competitor.

And given the government mandate for electronic medical records, combined with mandatory FBI access for monitoring, makes me wonder what's really going on here. Wanna blackmail someone? Apply some dirt on them to pressure them to accept that plea bargain?

Remember, this is the same gov that promotes the need of "cybersecurity" where the military networks are supposedly compromised remotely at times. Think of the tie-in--bounce off some mandated government backdoors through some corporate routers, compromise the military networks, and pretty soon, we won't have a need for Wikileaks.

Re:On behalf of all blackhats of this planet

[Anonymous Coward]

In no way did you consider the implications of your statements on the welfare of children around the world. Please show me your papers...

Re:On behalf of all blackhats of this planet

[Requiem18th]

Ok, on a more serious note, how long do you think 'til such a backdoor will be sniffed out and abused by people with even less concern for constitutional rights and fewer qualms to abuse such a privilege?

Divorce lawyers?

Dear FBI:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off.

Love, a concerned PRIVATE (in all meanings of the word) citizen.

Re:Dear FBI:

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you trying to hide that you think we don't already know about?

Re:Dear FBI:

[mabhatter654]

What you do with your "PRIVATE" is the STATE's Business.... damn it!

Didn't we feared China and others doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe these makers don't want to sell their devices on China.

On second tought, they may already doing and have them ready for US consumption now.

Tax breaks might work

[DigiShaman]

If I was an evil politician, I would create and leverage US tax law to provide the economic incentive to those that provide ease-of-wiretapping features into their products. I could sell the bill as a way to further save lives and money as a result of less time and effort spent capturing communications.

But, I'm a nice guy. So I could never run for office.

Re:Tax breaks might work

[intellitech]

I wish I could mod that down simply because we can't have evil politicians stealing your ideas.

Good thing they rarely read slashdot ;)

Re:Tax breaks might work

[corbettw]

Thank you for providing another reason we need a flat tax with no way to game the system in whatever way a given politician wants.

Re:Tax breaks might work

[DigiShaman]

It would take another revolution before that power is given up. No way, no how. Sadly.

MiguelFromMars

[Anonymous Coward]

Where it says to "Automatically share my personal information with identity thieves, sex predators, psycho exes, and the government" Yeah, you're gonna want to uncheck that box.

This is terrible!

[cheekyjohnson]

The poor little FBI is having trouble spying on people (court order or not). Let's all show our love for them and help them out!

Re:This is terrible!

[ColdWetDog]

The poor little FBI is having trouble spying on people (court order or not). Let's all show our love for them and help them out!

If they ask nicely, they can have my Capn Crunch secret decoder ring. But they have to be nice about it.

Re:This is terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let's all show our love for them and help them out!"

Um, you still fly the "Friendly"(sic) Skies...? But perhaps we might celebrate 'em all in some other way than allowing yet another top-down intrusion scheme... I got it! Let's help throw the Bureau a BAKE SALE! (Hold up on them fine Alice B. Toklas brownies, is all.) ;)

Maybe the attitude'll soften a bit once a certain series of Controlled Demolitions that took place with NO DEMOLITION PERMIT, about a decade back in downtown Manhattan, is at LAST treated to proper MOM-based Genuine Forensic Procedures. Once the Greedy Golden Lily-white (but for one and *she* ain't white by a long shot) high-hand "l33t"(sic) perps of THAT mass murder are brought to justice at LAST, a modicum of public trust will surely be restored. Until then: Nuh-uh.

Hint: Read your EP Heidner and catch the Abundance of Clues from Public Documents, Smart Gentle Literate Audience! Until that wee touch of Official Work Left Denied and Undone is at last done - and Done Right at that, fwiw - THIS Smart Gentle Literate Complex Systems Analyst has little respect for the integrity of said Bureau.

No cowards here. Just ain't signed in. And that is all! 0{:-|o

Incentives, huh

[Superdarion]

although she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.

I wonder if the FBI considers "not facing bankrupting fines and legal harrassment" an incentive...

Re:Incentives, huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you see, if we can't find incentives, we'll have to find alternatives, and we don't want that, do we?

By the way, how's the business and family doing?

Re:Incentives, huh

[R3d M3rcury]

"That's a nice little website you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. Y'know, like it suddenly being taken down because it has copyrighted material on it."

But, fortunately, the FBI never accidentally takes down websites. And, if they did, I'm sure they'd be really sorry. But these things happen, you understand...

Incentives?

[Clsid]

"she said she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies" Dammit, time to open my Yandex.ru e-mail account I guess.

in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of homes

[Joe The Dragon]

in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of homes and apartments.

A few reasons

[sjames]

I can think of about 84,000 good reasons we don't want to make pushbutton law enforcement any easier than it already is.

Watching people is supposed to be resource intensive, that's what makes sure they only do it when it's absolutely necessary.

Here's an idea, I will build in a police API to tap the web messages BUT it will automatically CC all requests to the EFF, ACLU, and Wikileaks. By using the API they agree to the CC up front.

I'm guessing it will be the world's least used police back door.

Re:A few reasons

[slashqwerty]

I can think of about 84,000 good reasons we don't want to make pushbutton law enforcement any easier than it already is.

Alright, what are they?

Re:A few reasons

[Kalriath]

You jest, but you just described a relatively effective system. I would exclude Wikileaks though, as they've demonstrated amply that they disseminate information and damn the consequences, whereas the ACLU or EFF (or similar localised entity) would be well placed to determine whether it's something to cry foul about or leave alone due a legitimate need for secrecy (for example, an actual terrorist). It would serve the needs of making it relatively painless to tap if there's a need, but still have that transparency and accountability while still maintaining secrecy if it's needed.

Re:A few reasons

[mabhatter654]

referring to last week's news:

the DoJ pushed for a few dozen domain seizures just last week for some lame IP offense... and took out 84,000 honest folks along with them redirecting the sites to scary "under investigations" pages. Sorry we scarred your customers for life... move along.

Not in the US

[Jane_Dozey]

Many Internet services are not covered by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)

They do realise that even more Internet services are not even in the US....right? Or does their jurisdiction actually extend to other countries now?

Re:Not in the US

[currently_awake]

The internet is run (owned) by the US government. They really do think they have the right to spy on everyone, everywhere.

Re:Not in the US

[toriver]

No, the Internet is a loose-ish mesh of cooperating individual network operators. Some are in the US, most are not.

The most commonly used and generally agreed-upon root DNS is "owned" by a US entity, that is correct. But the DNS can be replaced if needed be...

Re:Not in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here...

Re:Not in the US

[Draek]

Or does their jurisdiction actually extend to other countries now?

As far as they believe, yes. Their current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest examples of their quest in fulfilling their roles as self-appointed World Police.

I think if you look around, instances where the US respected the sovereignty of a foreign power are much scarcer than the opposite, and all with an ulterior motive.

It's already here.

[sharkbiter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

The NSA has been tasked with the domestic spying on America's own citizens by executive order. While I don't understand how said agency can decipher all the communications that criss-cross American territory on top of all the data that goes through satellites, cable, fiber to foreign destinations on top of all that, is beyond me.

http://insidecharmcity.com/2007/06/25/nsa-power-supply-problems-continue/

Perhaps, this explains all the recent power hits we've been experiencing here in MD lately...

its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[Indy1]

When the fascists at the NSA and FBI started their massive domestic spying program (Echelon, Carnivore, etc), I decided to make their lives harder and run my own mail server. While they can still snoop on the big boys (yahoo, aol, msn, etc), at least email from my end is safe, and if I send emails to non US based mail servers over SSL, theres at least some chance the fascists cant read the traffic.

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[betterunixthanunix]

Or you could just use end to end encryption. PGP or S/MIME are pretty easy to set up...

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[DirePickle]

Hard to get other people to use PGP/GPG/whatever, though.

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[forand]

You are aware that your emails are sent in plain text unless you only send email to people whose servers support an encrypted connection? Most do not.

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[Phroggy]

You are aware that your emails are sent in plain text unless you only send email to people whose servers support an encrypted connection? Most do not.

STARTTLS has been around for awhile now. Are you sure that "most" servers don't support it?

A lot of larger financial institutions are even beginning to require other companies they do business with to enforce TLS encryption when communicating with them (so, for example, if you do business with JP Morgan/Chase, they want you to configure your outgoing SMTP server to refuse to deliver mail to JPMC's servers if a TLS connection fails, bouncing the message to the sender instead of falling back to plain text).

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[Anonymous Coward]

So that mail server is overseas or otherwise outside the FBI's jurisdiction?

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that your emails are sent in plain text unless you only send email to people whose servers support an encrypted connection? Most do not.

Even spammers are using TLS these days.

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[misnohmer]

Using TLS for your SMTP is like putting a 6ft steel door on a straw hut. There are so many ways to go around it. For example:
1. Most servers that use TLS SMTP don't check trust chains - self signed certificates work with them so you can do main-in-the middle TLS
2. Most server that support TLS still allow non-TLS connections to accommodate servers that don't. This means man-in-the-middle attacks are trivial (just filer out the string that tells advertises TLS support causing the connection to proceed without encryption)
3. Even if you set your server to enforce TLS from JPmorgan (and properly check the trust chain for the other server) I can still obtain a valid cert for myevilmailserver.com and then connect to your server, authenticate and send you the email. If you go further and check SPF/SenderID (if JP Morgan has it properly setup) I can still spoof those since JP Morgan most likely does use secure DNS. Etc, etc...

SMTP TLS doesn't really give you anything other than prevent casual packet sniffer from seeing your email. Once you allow man-in-the-middle attacks all bets are off. If you are willing to restrict your server to only work with a known other server and not with any other server, create your own trust chains for certs, configure the other server to work securely with your server (and yes, you'll need access to both servers), etc, etc - it's easier to just setup a proper VPN between you and the server you want to secure communication from.

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[Phroggy]

You're not wrong. However, if enforcing TLS becomes commonplace, I'm sure the next step will be to start doing certificate validation.

Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server

[misnohmer]

The other exploits still exist due to SMTP.
1. Unless 100% of servers go to TLS, you'll have to allow for unencrypted sessions and since the decision to encrypt is unsecured, you will always be able to do a man-in-the middle attack forcing unencrypted sessions.
2. Even if 100% of servers do go TLS, SMTP is still missing the information of who is allowed to send what mail. my_evil_server.com with a valid certificate can connect to you, validate with proper certificate, then sends you mail from JPMorgan

The only way to secure the 2 above exploits is to hard code on your server to only accept JPMorgan emails over TLS, *AND* only from a specific set of server - that doesn't scale if JPMorgan adds a new mail server, nor does it scale as a generic solution for all emails from all over the internet.

Cheers!

The Irony Gets Thicker

[Phoenix666]

And here we are seeing a wave of democracy sweeping the Arab world, facilitated in part by these very technologies. At the same time, the U.S. government is positioning itself to prevent those very tools being used against it.

There are still those here who will say that it's hyperbole, but the same tipping point is approaching here. Our real rulers (hint: neither political party, but those behind both) are getting nervous and moving to keep their grip on our society. They have perpetrated the most massive theft in the history of mankind, absconding with trillions of dollars of our money, selling our children into a lifetime of debt servitude while theirs party on; they know it, and we know it, and they're starting to realize that we know it too.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[srmalloy]

There are still those here who will say that it's hyperbole, but the same tipping point is approaching here. Our real rulers (hint: neither political party, but those behind both) are getting nervous and moving to keep their grip on our society. They have perpetrated the most massive theft in the history of mankind, absconding with trillions of dollars of our money, selling our children into a lifetime of debt servitude while theirs party on; they know it, and we know it, and they're starting to realize that we know it too.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

The emphasis is mine. It is interesting that this quote is most often seen cut off after 'patriots'. Who might have a vested interest in seeing that the public stops thinking of rulers being made to pay for growing oppressive?

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[currently_awake]

The big question is what will it take till we pull an egypt on these guys. Just how far must the fascists push us till we break out the torches and pitchforks? It would be extremely ironic if the middle east became the last bastion of freedom in the world while we slip into a fascist/military dictatorship.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we are seeing a wave of democracy sweeping the Arab world

Oh please, those Arabs have no plans, no leaders and no democracy. This Egypt thing is not like the US Revolution or Israel or Gandhi and India.

It is more like the French Revolution where the commoners replaced Louis for Napoleon, except in Egypt they have no Voltaire.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[Sulphur]

Oh please, those Arabs have no plans, no leaders and no democracy. This Egypt thing is not like the US Revolution or Israel or Gandhi and India.

It is more like the French Revolution where the commoners replaced Louis for Napoleon, except in Egypt they have no Voltaire.

If they have no Voltaire, then they must invent one.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[Sulfate]

Not to mention all the resources and time and money wasted on this intelligence framework, adding to the debt and doing jack shit for creating trust or jobs or stability. All this disruptive activity, further swishes America right down the toilet.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[Anonymous Coward]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson also supported the French Revolution at its bloodiest, for similar reasons. He was just wrong at that time. In the modern world, we don't have to kill them, or riot like the Egyptians did. If we aren't willing to rise up together and vote them out, then we deserve what we get.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[martin-boundary]

You have no grasp of the French revolution. The "commoners" didn't replace one king with another (emperor) as you might think, what actually happened was that the whole upper class was disposessed and eradicated or fled. When the Napoleonic Empire was created after many years of terror, it was the former middle class that was now in power.

Here's an analogy. Take all the top people in America and kill them or let them flee, but make sure to take all their assets. That's 80% of everything in America which is owned today by the top 25% of households. Now use all that money to completely change society, and wait to see who (from the previous middle class) rises to the top in the new environment.

The French revolution was no communist project, so there was always going to be a new upper class, but the whole point was that the old corrupt and inbred upper class (the nobles and the clergy) was removed from power, and the new upper class was able to make lasting changes.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you vote out the lobbyists?

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[Aryden]

and just who do you say we vote in? the next guy that will do the same thing, but said he wouldn't during the election? Get real. The problem lies in the system of electing people who WANT to be in those positions rather than people who are actually qualified to be in them. I do not give 2 shits if a politician has experience in foreign policy if that self same politician is making, executing or ruling on IP Law. I want people that actually understand what IP law is and the technologies involved doing that.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[currently_awake]

During the dark ages the countries of europe became unpleasant backwater countries, no rights and constant persecution (of some). During that time the arab nations were open/enlightened countries. It looks like we're heading back towards that. I'm not sure how long this wave of freedom will last in the middle east, it's happening because the money the dictators use to stay in power has dried up. Unfortunately that money is gone for the replacement gov as well, and it's hard to stay in power when you're broke. The arab nations have been complaining about how the west destroyed their civilization with the crusades and plundered their wealth, well now that's about to end. If they really want to restore their people to a leadership role/shining beacon of civilization then now is your chance. Otherwise we're looking at somalia on a huge scale. I'm glad I don't live in europe, that's where the hundreds of millions of refugees will go.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[swalve]

The top 25% of households is roughly everyone with a net worth over $500,000. That's not that hard to do if you are older than 40. The median is about $600,000. The top 10% of households have a mean net worth of $4,000,000. The median is about $1,900,000. That means that a lot of the wealth is concentrated among a very few, but very rich individuals.

If you kill the richest 25% of households in the country and split it all equally, you are talking about giving the other households about $166,000. Seems like a lot, but the trouble that would be caused would barely be worth it. I mean, you've killed almost all of the professional class and experienced people in society. Good luck with that.

Anyway, a lot of the net worth of the upper parts of the US are held as debts of the lower parts. So you kill everyone, and all you end up getting for it is not having to make mortgage and credit card payments. Also, any of your savings that is in the form of stocks and bonds probably disappears, since you killed the guys running the companies those debts were against. You can't get any kind of loans, because you killed all the people with the cash to fund the loans. So you better be able to live the rest of your life with what you have right now, because you are never going to be able to buy another car or house again. You killed everyone who designs and makes them.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[swalve]

Democracy my ass. Revolutions aren't democracy, they are about taking power from one and giving it to another. Seriously- these clowns took power from an old man, and gave it to the guys with the guns. That's not democracy.

Here is a question: where are these trillions of dollars at? They absconded with it, where did it go? I'm not sure what hunk of money you are talking about. If you are talking about the trillions in home values and stock values here is a little reality for you: that money didn't get stolen, it just disappeared. When you have a 401k and you get that statement and it has the value on there, those aren't actual dollars. You just own a bunch of [electronic] pieces of paper that, IF they were sold at the moment the statement was cut, would be worth that amount. If something happens that makes people value those pieces of paper less, your account value goes down. Nobody stole that money, because it wasn't money. Same with house values. You wanted a house, which is a thing that has no value except what someone else will pay for it, and you borrowed real money to pay for it. You made the asinine presumption that some future sucker would be as dumb as you and pay you even more for it. What happened, then, was that a bunch of people decided that houses weren't worth nearly what people thought they were, and quit buying them. Now your house isn't worth what you thought it was, but the money you borrowed still is worth its nominal amount. Nobody stole any money. Nobody forced you to think a house was worth what you paid for it. That was imaginary money that simply vaporized.

Maybe you are talking about government debt? When the US government borrows money, where does it come from? What do they do with it? This is a *little* closer to theft, but it isn't like they are walking out of fort knox with wheel barrows full of currency. First, the vast majority of US debt is held by US citizens, in the form of retirement plans and social security IOUs. So when it comes time to pay up, we will just be paying ourselves back. It is true that China is our largest foreign creditor, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to our total debt. Now, how does that money flow? They send us cheap DVD players, we send them dollars. Now they have dollars, but what are they going to do with those? They can't just wander down to the currency exchange and transmogrify them into yuan that they can use. Just like any other thing, someone has to buy them. So the US buys the dollars back. And it is a heck of a deal: we get our money back, and all they get is a promise.

Ok, now we have our dollars back. What does the government do with them? Again, no wheelbarrows. Money the government gets through taxes and borrowing doesn't just disappear. They spend it- they send it back into the economy. Whether as paychecks, or interest payments on debt, or buy buying things. Those are all paychecks for someone. Who goes out and buys cheap DVD players. So it isn't nearly as simple as you seem to think.

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[sznupi]

The French revolution was no communist project, so there was always going to be a new upper class, but the whole point was that the old corrupt and inbred upper class (the nobles and the clergy) was removed from power, and the new upper class was able to make lasting changes.

So, exactly how large part of them ended up in the US?... ;) (ducks)

Re:The Irony Gets Thicker

[sznupi]

Who might have a vested interest in seeing that the public stops thinking of rulers being made to pay for growing oppressive?

Everybody who at least secretly hopes to get their own slice of the cake? (say, "stalinist libertarians" would be one category; "useful fools" in more general terms)

Freedom Box.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox

Inspired by Eben Moglen's vision of a small, cheap and simple computer that serves freedom in the home. We are building a Debian based platform for distributed applications.

Freedom Box is about:

        * privacy
        * control
        * ease of use
        * dehierarchicalization

Vision Statement

We live in a world where our use of the network is mediated by organizations that often do not have our best interests at heart. By building software that does not rely on a central service, we can regain control and privacy. By keeping our data in our homes, we gain useful legal protections over it. By giving back power to the users over their networks and machines, we are returning the Internet to its intended peer-to-peer architecture.

In order to bring about the new network order, it is paramount that it is easy to convert to it. The hardware it runs on must be cheap. The software it runs on must be easy to install and administrate by anybody. It must be easy to transition from existing services.

Re:Freedom Box.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the new site:

http://freedomboxfoundation.org/

and you can donate.

Re:Freedom Box.

[Anonymous Coward]

>dehierarchicalization
*spits tea everywhere*
I think that the use of this word should be rethought.

Re:Freedom Box.

[muckracer]

> http://freedomboxfoundation.org/

https://freedomboxfoundation.org/

TFIFY!

Quite simple

[Anonymous Coward]

All they need to do is ask China how to do it.

Re:Quite simple

[mabhatter654]

it's mostly American Companies pimping out the Great Firewall anyway.

I've often wondered the ethics of those companies... it's like being an arms maker but complaining about somebody practice shooting a .50 cal in your gated neighborhood. Seriously, what do these guys think this stuff is for?

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[countertrolling]

Have they banned curtains yet?

The Backdoor Exists Already.

[VortexCortex]

Here's how it works:

1. Identify the individual you want to spy on.
2. Identify the web services you want to spy via.
3. Obtain the SSL certificates of the web services.
3. Gag & Order the certificate authorities named in the SSL certs to create the FBI/NSA a new fake trusted cert.
4. Use the unwarranted wire-tap systems already in place to "Man in the Middle" any connections the individual makes to the web services you wish t spy on.
5. Return the fake cert to the individual, and re-encrypt the data to the web service using the real cert.
6. Spy on the individual as much as you like.
7. ...
8. Oppress!

Note: If the CA is not a US company, then simply use Verisign or other US company to creat the fake certs -- No one checks to see if the cert is actually the one that the domain normally uses...

CAs can make certificates without the domain owner's permissions -- As long as the certificate authorities don't need the domain owner's permission to generate certificates the SECURITY THEATER of SSL will remain intact.

Also Note: FF > Preferences > Advanced > Security Tab > View Certificates > CNNIC ROOT
This is the root certificate that China will use in these types of MITM attacks.

P.S. Remember when a large portion of the Internet was "accidentally" routed through China?

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[Kernel Krumpit]

Thanks. Deleted instantly as a matter of course.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[bendodge]

No one checks to see if the cert is actually the one that the domain normally uses...

I do! Via Perspectives. I've very, very rarely had it alert me to anything, but it could be extremely useful the one time it does.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[thejynxed]

Thanks, for pointing this out. I installed the Chrome version, as I gave up on Firefox two years ago due to serious bugs that never get fixed.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting points, and fairly accurate as far as SSL goes. I don't know about Skype (not a user and too lazy to go find out right now), but remember that generally speaking if I control both the client application and the server application I don't really need a third-party CA. So, assuming I wasn't using one, that particular method of attacking privacy wouldn't work.

Doesn't mean we don't need a method of defeating the attacks against SSL though, because what you describe is highly effective against regular web site users, where the client and server are controlled by different parties and thus some "trusted entity" must be engaged. It could be started, as you say, by checking to see if a cert is one that a given browser has seen before. Of course, there are ways around THAT too if you're really determined--the war against criminal attackers and overzealous law enforcement never ends--and it's kind of ironic that the techniques used to deal with either are so similar.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I agree the vulnerabilities you mentioned are correct, but I really don't think "security theater" is appropriate here.

First, SSL as a technology works just fine. It's entirely possible to create a restricted set of CAs and certificates and have a system at least as secure as, say, SSH. I know I do something similar with OpenVPN connections, which use OpenSSL certificates. Not every use of SSL is the mess that the typical HTTPS in your browser is.

Second, it reduces the number of individuals who can successfully MITM you massively. For a live demonstration of this, walk into any coffee shop and fire up FireSheep, and look at how many people are vulnerable. Flip on SSL and, far from security theater, they are at least safe from you.

By contrast, what Schneier was talking about was specifically the act of guarding against the sort of threat you'd see as a movie plot, which is a real threat, but is so unlikely and specific that defending against it simply isn't worth it -- often, it's not just a matter of money and resources, it actually buys you no additional security, whereas SSL does provide some security.

Let me put it this way: Forcing you to remove your shoes and surrender any significant amounts of liquid is security theater, because it's defending against specific threats which we've already seen -- I suppose the next bomb will be in someone's hat instead, or made of solid pastes instead of liquid. By contrast, a bulletproof vest is not security theater just because it doesn't defend against a headshot -- even ignoring that helmets exist for that purpose, if it really seems likely you'll get in a firefight of some sort, it's still going to be a lot harder for someone to take you out of the fight, and certainly harder for them to do anything fatal.

I do share your concern for SSL, though. If I may abuse the above analogy, it's become apparent that we need helmets, and maybe better armor.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Return the fake cert to the individual, and re-encrypt the data to the web service using the real cert.

At that point, your target will be in possession of a certificate proving that the CA in question cannot be trusted. And the CA's entire business is based around people trusting them.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one checks to see if the cert is actually the one that the domain normally uses...

I do! Via Perspectives. I've very, very rarely had it alert me to anything, but it could be extremely useful the one time it does.

Doesn't perspectives only check certificates that aren't signed by a trusted CA?

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[GameboyRMH]

No, Perspectives checks all certs (not sure if that's the default behavior, but it can be configured to do so).

I recommend using it in combination with CertPatrol.

Re:The Backdoor Exists Already.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lot of steps to take (hence the FBI whining), and it only works for normal SSL connections that rely on the usual CAs.

Freedom through a straw?

[Anonymous Coward]

But WTF does it do!?

Re:Freedom through a straw?

[Delarth799]

It imposes freedom on all those that would dare to oppress it!

Re:Freedom through a straw?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://freedomboxfoundation.org/goals/

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[BrightSpark]

This is the Government-based peer-to-peer networking in action!

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[SudoGhost]

If you don't have anything to hide, why buy curtains?

As always ...

[khasim]

Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.

And it is always sold the same way.

They want to "protect" you from the "enemy".
So you need to do your part and give up some rights (just for a little while) to make it easier to find the "enemy" hiding among you.

If you aren't supporting their team ... that means you're
a. supporting the "enemy's" team
b. delusional / stupid
c. secretly hate us and really are hoping the "enemy" wins

Re:As always ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism also begins with the letter F. Like 'FBI'.

Re:As always ...

[sznupi]

The beginning is perhaps somewhere else - say, in constant usage of forms of newspeak, repetition of "obvious" untruths by large enough part of society.

What we seem to have in abundance now ("enhanced interrogation techniques" or..."freedom", to use just two vivid examples; also of course general "national security" or even "enemy")

yea no...

[Charliemopps]

My companies solution to this was to ship the entire email nightmare over to Google, let them deal with it. In fact, if law enforcement were to REQUIRE we do something anyway I'd think we'd just drop email all together. It's not profitable, we can't charge for it, it's nothing but a headache. So basically law enforcement would just be force ALL email off shore.

Re:yea no...

[mabhatter654]

where the NSA by law does not need a warrant to inspect anything they want because it's "outside the USA" and the constitution stops at the boarder. Seriously, haven't you been reading anything?

Re:yea no...

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google sniffs all your email without a subpoena. And then if anybody else wants it, they subpoena Google, who give it away without even telling you.

Re:yea no...

[Anonymous Coward]

My companies solution to this was to ship the entire email nightmare over to Google

So you moved your mail to Google so that every email you send is automatically scanned and recorded by the government. (Also remember when you delete email at Google it doesn't go away they keep a copy of everything) Cool you just made it easier for them. I hate to tell you this but ALL public email systems (yahoo, hotmail, gmail) have massive federal boxes sitting at the gateways of the networks scanning every piece of data going in and out. I know this for a fact at Yahoo's DCs I have seen them.

Best thing PGP your mail but well people are too lazy for that.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[Doctor_Jest]

Some people need curtains to stop showing us what they look like nekkid. Some things should simply remain a mystery. In regards to the FBI... how can the government simply bribe companies to provide back doors for the FBI? (And if the FBI has one, so do hackers...) Cocksucking lawyers. I hate them all.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[black6host]

"If you don't have anything to hide, why buy curtains?"

Exactly. Those with curtains must surely be cretins quite capable of crime. Their criminality must be curtailed. Time for the big scanners, where curtains would be no protection. Don't have it today? Don't worry, it will be here sometime. All this talk should surely be nonsense, but give it a bit of time. There are those who would much prefer it. (Yes, yes, of course: "Peeping Toms" would love it ) But total transparency really means the gov't should be able to see what you're doing, not that you should know what they're doing.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[JustOK]

And curtain makers, whether or not they have curtains in their homes, should be sent to gitmo.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[DarkTempes]

And all the cameras see is a raging alot staring back at them.

sad/happy

[it5complicated]

Am I supposed to feel happy that I can preserve my privacy or should I feel sad that FBI is reduced to complaining about its own incompetence and asking to be spoon fed?

FBI, you've got your work cut out for you.

[exentropy]

"The FBI is concerned about about criminals running loose because the agency can't execute a wiretap", Caproni said. "That criminal may be a massive drug dealer, they may be an arms trafficker, they may be a child pornographer or a child molester."

Don't worry, the Muskegon County Prosecutor has got you covered! He's already found one of those pesky child molesters, no wiretap required.

Shock!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean,in spite of the abus....err, empowerment of authority granted by the Patriot Act, they STILL can't connect the G@#d@^&#d dots?

Do I laugh? Do I cry? Do Iaugh until I cry?

Meh, pass me another cold one please. Obscurity theatre is so entertaining these days.....

cheers

[Anonymous Coward]

Good article, thanks for sharing... ;)

Kamagra

Windows already has a backdoor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming most of you do not run Windows, there is no cause for concern of course.

But there is already a mega-hole backdoor in Windows.
They listen to whatever they want, to whenever they want to.

Between the fact that the laws haven't caught up to the technology and the Patriot Act, they're laughing right in your faces while they're doing it.

And before all you gurus respond with some tech savvy lackluster comment, let me just say;
you may not run Windows, but I guarantee you someone that you love does.

Why won't you allow me to post comments exactly?

There's an app for that... err, device

[Memroid]

Federal Bureau of Investigation is lamenting the difficulty in executing wiretaps because of "web-based e-mail, social-networking and peer-to-peer services."

Actually, I know of at least one company, IP Fabrics, that creates devices to sell to the FBI/CIA for wiretapping and extracting content from popular sites.

From their website:

Our latest products are the industry's only intelligent network surveillance systems for 1Gbps and 10Gbps networks. Designed for use in distributed data retention and lawful intercept solutions under the control of separate mediation systems, they are ideal for monitoring large and complex networks and offer advanced features such as the ability to generate IPDRs and intercept targets using Webmail/Email, chat/IM, VoIP, and IP address/subnet.

Awww

[Legion303]

My heart bleeds for the poor, defenseless FBI. Truly.

You work is difficult....

[Anonymous Coward]

ahhh, didums.

Go get another job then.

Check the Constitution-FBI doesn't have "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just checked the US Constitution and all the amendments. It is a quick read.

There is nothing in it about the FBI having the right to wiretap peoples communications without a warrant. A few years ago, there were less than 3,000 judge approved wiretaps inside the entire USA. http://www.justice.gov/nsd/foia/reading_room/foia_readingroom.htm

There are 310,000,000 people in the USA. http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html They are suggesting all that this infrastructure be built to monitor 3,000 people? Only government thinks this way.

I'm sorry that monitoring private communications isn't easy. I'm also happy it isn't.

Unbelievable isnt it

[unity100]

A servant of public, appointed by representatives of people, selected by people, complains to those representatives of people that the servants working with him/her are not having an easy time SPYING on the public that had had put them in service .....

and this is not only legal, but apparently, also 'ethical' and 'normal'.

corporate democracy, youre one of a kind ...

Jobs to leave the US

[karit]

Does this mean more IT companies base themselves outside of the US and do the work there where they are not forced to put back doors in? Taking jobs out of American and having the work done in other countries.

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[Aryden]

It wouldnt matter if you develop outside of the country, they government could simply require that all IP software being sold within the US have the backdoors and voila, your money saving privacy scheme is gone because now you cant sell to the US market.

The only way to work this out is to actually stand up to the government and say "STOP!"

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[GameboyRMH]

OH NOES HOW CAN YOU MAEK MONIEZ WITHOUT SELLING TO THE US!? WHO ELSE HAZ MONIEZ!? T_T

The company will get along just fine selling to the rest of the planet while the US cowers under its tinfoil cowboy hat.

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[Aryden]

World Databank reports that IT spending in the US (1.034 trillion) accounts for 3 times the next highest market, Japan (300billion). You seriously think cutting the US market out of that is a wise move for your software/hardware company?

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[GameboyRMH]

Sure if you have a choice it's better to include the US market, but if you can't, it's not a huge problem.

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[Aryden]

Tell that to the board of directors for any major software/IT corp and you'll find it's a massive problem. The IT spending within the US increased by 5% last year and is estimated to increase by 8% this year.

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[GameboyRMH]

My point is that not being able to sell within the US isn't a death sentence for a project or company. It can still make money.

If selling a product within the US without a backdoor is illegal, you have three choices:

1. Abandon the project because of the loss of ~300m potential customers.

2. Continue selling it to the other 7-point-something billion people on the planet.

3. Sell it to the 7.x billion people outside the US plus the 0.3 billion inside the US, including a gigantic security vulnerability that will harshly damage the reputation of your product, at least if it's used in businesses.

Which is the best option?

Re:Jobs to leave the US

[Aryden]

Its not necessarily a matter of 300mil people in america. Its a factor of how many systems that piece of software might be installed on. Hell there are 11 PC's and Macs in my house alone, and that doesnt include my office, my roommate's office (fairly large company). So youre limiting yourself not by population but by consumption.

The additional issue is that, overall IT spending in the world last year was roughly 1.4-1.5 trillion. The US accounted for 1.04 trillion of that money. Roughly 66% of total IT spending. So again, it isnt 300million people, its 66% of your possible revenue stream.

That's a huge problem.

Incentives?

[EmotionToilet]

"she's optimistic the US government can find incentives for companies to 'have intercept solutions engineered into their systems.'"

What incentives? Like money? Like the US government wants to be able to pay the companies for our privacy and buy it away from us? Like freedom and privacy aren't actually "rights" at all? Just luxuries that can be taken away from us if we don't pay enough or provide other incentives to compete with the government? This is what Penn & Teller call "Bullshit!"

They think we're stupid, and they may be right

[Compaqt]

Erm, "That criminal may be a ... an arms trafficker," ?!

Guess who's the largest arms trafficker in the world? Yeah, the US! All facilitated by the Feds.

As for the rest of the rogue's gallery, if you want to argue that preventing those crimes is an absolute value, then you should also be arguing that there be one government "minder" for every citizen.

What, you're merely promoting wiretapping, and not direct government surveillance (minders)? So you're in favor of child molestation?

Keyboard backdoor

[dargaud]

While they are at it, why don't they force all keyboard manufacturers to include a firmware backdoor that records everything typed ? After all, if you are posting subversive messages, you have to type them first, and the manufacturers are at fault for allowing their products to be used to facilitate terrorism, right ?

I feel so sorry

[Cant use a slash wtf]

No really, I couldn't feel any more sorry for you. I understand how hard it is not being able to probe through peoples' personal lives and information without consulting them. Stay strong, FBI, we can make it through this together.

How about...

[Anonymous Coward]

When Canada decides to transform USA into its personal powerplant?

Banana republics are so... 20th century. Solar republics will be so much more democratic. (Or at least less volatile. Electricity doesn't stand disruptions in transport.)

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[Gordonjcp]

No, they can't. It's illegal for cameras to be able to see into people's windows. To that end, they have mechanical interlocks that prevent them being pointed in certain directions, and pre-programmed "blanking areas" that blank out the video feed if they're aimed at certain areas.

Using CCTV to look through people's windows is generally a sacked-first-time-it-happens thing.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[Gordonjcp]

No, but they have banned aiming CCTV cameras at people's windows. Slashdot needs a "-1, Just Plain Incorrect" moderation.

It's been 10 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Fuck you, slashdot janitors.

This is a JIHAD against privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The mullahs of the US government have decreed that Allah will be
displeased if they are not allowed to spy on the common people.

Caproni leads the Jihad. And god damn, what a nasty ugly fat dyke she is.

existing solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

There exist solutions already such as products like Netwitness, full capture and recording of all internet traffic.
But they are again bypassed using VPNs and networks like Tor, so there can never be a 100% solution to this problem. It will always be bypassable.
People who suspect being tapped just use internet cafes, buys p2p vpn services through different countries or uses networks like Tor.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if its accurate?

The truth is always correct, despite what people may want you to think.

If people wear towels on their head and they live in a shithole, *then its okay to say that*.

"after a court has issued a wiretap order"

[nurb432]

After the court order, they can do pretty much anything they want anyway ( like installing a keylogger, or bug your house ). So other then making it a bit less of a technological hurdle, the 'stakes' are pretty much the same.

Not saying it wont be abused later, but on the surface there isn't a fundamental change proposed.

control?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was specifically designed not to have single points of failure and to reroute traffic around obstacles, and now they whine about troubles making a central point of control?

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[countertrolling]

No, but they have banned aiming CCTV cameras at people's windows.

That's even dumber than banning curtains. That can dictate what you can look at now?

The more you tighten your grip ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the more ( star ) systems will slip through your fingers.

Chicken and egg problem

[currently_awake]

The reason encryption hasn't caught on is because the people you want to talk to don't use it. They don't use it because you don't use it. Having a secure VPN from your house to nowhere isn't going to get you secure facebook or email. For this to catch on you'd need to build it into everyone's home firewall/router with autoswitching between secure and insecure mode based on if both ends have this feature.

Prior Restraint?

[MarkvW]

It seems to me that a forced crippling of somebody's ability to communicate confidentially would be the essence of a prior restraint. The government can get prior restraint, but only in extremely unusual situations.

Difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so they have a difficult job. That's why we pay them the big bucks (8 billion for FY 2011).

I find it annoying that so much money is spent, but I find that preferable to trampling on civil rights.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[Gordonjcp]

What's "dumb" about it? You're not allowed to use CCTV to invade people's privacy. No, you do not have any privacy in the middle of a crowded shopping street.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[countertrolling]

Nonsense. Unless it's impossible to block the camera, there is no "invasion" of anything. Telling me where I can point is outrageous.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[Gordonjcp]

So, do you think it's perfectly okay to stand outside someone's house staring in the window?

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[countertrolling]

If he's on public property, there's no argument. I don't know what you're trying to defend here, but it sounds bogus. If you don't want me to look into your window, you close the damn curtain, put up one way glass, whatever. You don't tell people they must wear a blindfold, or turn off their camera when they walk by. You're being absurd, or just messing around

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[countertrolling]

Blind it with a laser.. hehe.. better than spray painting the lens.

Skype, open source?

[CAIMLAS]

Skype isn't fully open source

Did I miss something? Since when is Skype open source? It works on a lot of platforms, sure (and this is admirable, even if somewhat ineffectual due to how crappy their clients have been for non-mainstream OSes) - but it is certainly not open source.

Re:Skype, open source?

[Anthony Mouse]

http://blogs.skype.com/linux/2009/11/skype_open_source.html

They announced it, I'm not sure that they ever actually released anything.

Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom

[RewriteQuran]

because I can't shit in public.

Magic Latern and Carnivore DHS

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

I stopped offering support services for this very reason. People deserve privacy and Sir Arthur C Clarke told me when he was alive. The world is just not ready for some technology and Einstein was also abused so he stopped helping before things became out of control.

I can hand craft code to suit my needs, remember, why give knowledge to people who cannot responsibly hold it with without corruption or sinister intentions?