FBI Complains About Wiretapping Difficulties Due To Web Services

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Complains About Wiretapping Difficulties Due To Web Services

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday February 19, 2011 @01:49PM from the wait-wait-let-me-find-my-tiny-violin dept.

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.'"

63 of 228 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

we should make it easier for them by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-19 13:55 · Score: 2, Funny

The FBI needs to have easy access to everything - to keep up safe. All sites need to provide the FBI with all user data.
1. Re:we should make it easier for them by Pennidren · 2011-02-19 14:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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'.
2. Re:we should make it easier for them by jdpars · 2011-02-19 15:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:we should make it easier for them by JustOK · 2011-02-19 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  5. PROFIT!
  
  --
  rewriting history since 2109
4. Re:we should make it easier for them by TheReaperD · 2011-02-19 15:59 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
5. Re:we should make it easier for them by Darkness404 · 2011-02-19 16:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
6. Re:we should make it easier for them by moortak · 2011-02-20 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
What about encrypted communications? by BitterOak · 2011-02-19 13:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
1. Re:What about encrypted communications? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-19 14:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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?
2. Re:What about encrypted communications? by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-02-19 14:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
3. Re:What about encrypted communications? by jbolden · 2011-02-19 14:41 · Score: 2
  
  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
4. Re:What about encrypted communications? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-19 14:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
5. Re:What about encrypted communications? by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-02-19 15:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:What about encrypted communications? by Anthony+Mouse · 2011-02-19 15:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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).
7. Re:What about encrypted communications? by _ivy_ivy_ · 2011-02-19 15:40 · Score: 2
  
  security vulnerabilities that tempt black hats like chocolate cake tempts Michael Moore.
  This is clearly a nominee for the metaphor of the award.
8. Re:What about encrypted communications? by icebike · 2011-02-19 16:19 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
9. Re:What about encrypted communications? by icebike · 2011-02-19 16:36 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
10. Re:What about encrypted communications? by whoever57 · 2011-02-19 18:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
11. Re:What about encrypted communications? by QuantumBeep · 2011-02-19 18:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yes, th...
  Naw, dead serious. I swear to god.
12. Re:What about encrypted communications? by KlomDark · 2011-02-20 00:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  >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.
Police work is not SUPPOSED to be easy by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-02-19 14:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
On behalf of all blackhats of this planet by Opportunist · 2011-02-19 14:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Tax breaks might work by DigiShaman · 2011-02-19 14:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
This is terrible! by cheekyjohnson · 2011-02-19 14:19 · Score: 2

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!

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
1. Re:This is terrible! by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-19 14:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Incentives, huh by Superdarion · 2011-02-19 14:21 · Score: 2

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...
1. Re:Incentives, huh by R3d+M3rcury · 2011-02-19 16:01 · Score: 2
  
  "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...
in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of homes by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-02-19 14:25 · Score: 3, Informative

in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of homes and apartments.
Re:Bohoo by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-19 14:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh cry me a river!
You'll need an Environmental Impact Statement before you can do that, citizen.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
A few reasons by sjames · 2011-02-19 14:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:A few reasons by mabhatter654 · 2011-02-19 18:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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 by Jane_Dozey · 2011-02-19 14:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

--
Silly rabbit
1. Re:Not in the US by toriver · 2011-02-19 21:51 · Score: 2
  
  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...
2. Re:Not in the US by Draek · 2011-02-20 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
It's already here. by sharkbiter · 2011-02-19 14:26 · Score: 2

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 by Indy1 · 2011-02-19 14:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
1. Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server by betterunixthanunix · 2011-02-19 14:52 · Score: 2
  
  Or you could just use end to end encryption. PGP or S/MIME are pretty easy to set up...
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server by DirePickle · 2011-02-19 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  Hard to get other people to use PGP/GPG/whatever, though.
3. Re:its because of fed.gov I run my own mail server by Phroggy · 2011-02-19 16:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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).
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Bohoo by vvaduva · 2011-02-19 14:31 · Score: 5, Funny

That's worth several lolz but then you'd have to deal with OSHAs noise level regulations... :)
Re:Fuck that by FatdogHaiku · 2011-02-19 14:32 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
The Irony Gets Thicker by Phoenix666 · 2011-02-19 14:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
1. Re:The Irony Gets Thicker by srmalloy · 2011-02-19 14:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
2. Re:The Irony Gets Thicker by currently_awake · 2011-02-19 16:21 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:The Irony Gets Thicker by martin-boundary · 2011-02-19 20:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:The Irony Gets Thicker by Aryden · 2011-02-19 22:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
5. Re:The Irony Gets Thicker by currently_awake · 2011-02-20 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  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.
Freedom Box. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-19 14:35 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
The Backdoor Exists Already. by VortexCortex · 2011-02-19 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
1. Re:The Backdoor Exists Already. by bendodge · 2011-02-19 15:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  The government can't save you.
2. Re:The Backdoor Exists Already. by SanityInAnarchy · 2011-02-19 18:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom by SudoGhost · 2011-02-19 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you don't have anything to hide, why buy curtains?
As always ... by khasim · 2011-02-19 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
yea no... by Charliemopps · 2011-02-19 15:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

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:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom by Doctor_Jest · 2011-02-19 15:39 · Score: 2

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.

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom by JustOK · 2011-02-19 15:55 · Score: 2

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

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:Awesome by ehrichweiss · 2011-02-19 16:17 · Score: 2

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

--
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Check the Constitution-FBI doesn't have "rights" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-19 21:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by unity100 · 2011-02-19 21:36 · Score: 2

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 ...

--
Read radical news here
Re:in the UK the cameras can see in to alot of hom by Gordonjcp · 2011-02-20 00:20 · Score: 2

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 by Gordonjcp · 2011-02-20 00:23 · Score: 2

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.
Chicken and egg problem by currently_awake · 2011-02-20 03:58 · Score: 2

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.
Re:Jobs to leave the US by GameboyRMH · 2011-02-20 05:09 · Score: 2

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.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel