Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

As Contradictions Mount, Experts Call For Declassification of Yahoo's Email-Scanning Order (onthewire.io)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the did-you-Yahoo? dept.

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Look at this contradiction in the government's story about their secret scans on hundreds of millions of Yahoo emails. "Intelligence officials told Reuters that all Yahoo had to do was modify existing systems for stopping child pornography from being sent through its email or filtering spam messages." But three former Yahoo employee have now said that actually the court-ordered search "was done by a module attached to the Linux kernel -- in other words, it was deeply buried near the core of the email server operating system, far below where mail sorting was handled... They said that made it hard to detect and also made it hard to figure out what the program was doing."
Slashdot reader Trailrunner7 writes: Now, experts at the EFF and Sen. Ron Wyden say that the order served on Yahoo should be made public according to the text of a law passed last year. The USA Freedom Act is meant to declassify certain kinds of government orders, and the EFF says the Yahoo order fits neatly into the terms of the law. "If the reports about the Yahoo order are accurate -- including requiring the company to custom build new software to accomplish the scanning -- it's hard to imagine a better candidate for declassification and disclosure under Section 402," Aaron Mackey of the EFF said.

50 comments

  1. Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Working within the system will have no result. The only significant disclosures will come from someone throwing their life away ala Snowden.

    The Yahoo thing doesn't grab the general public by the pussy, so they don't care.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, feminists even argue for more rules, more censorship and criminalizing more things, rather than working towards a more tolerant and free society. They want to introduce starecrime and wantcrime, where simply the act of wanting a woman and looking at her is equal to rape. Welcome to the orwell society!

      Trump is a very bad choice for president, but locker room talk really is not why he should be avoided. The only positive thing from this is that many republicans condemn his actions and declare to not support him anymore, so his chances of becoming president sink.

    2. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, we have a presidential candidate dedicated to working outside the system...

      TRUMP 2016: GRABBING AMERICA BY THE PUSSY

    3. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you really believe all of this fake angst about Trump's statements? Or are they desperate for the good old days to come back when they didn't have to deal with a tea party or Trumpkins? Maybe they think they can separate themselves from the perceived electoral disaster coming?

      Or, perhaps, there are a lot of people who will behave differently inside a voting booth than outside of it?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 1

      Probably our only chance for meaningful change...Clinton would be the same shit and worse for at least 4 more years.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    5. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by crashumbc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, perhaps, there are a lot of people who will behave differently inside a voting booth than outside of it?

      For all the people claiming "he can't win", there is a extremely large population of Americans that long for 1950's and will vote that way, no matter what they say in the polls.

    6. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 2

      Peggy Noonan had an article a couple weeks ago about one of her friends in Manhattan. The guy is pretty middle of the road, according to her, and has voted both ways in the past. He said something like "I'm going to go into that booth and vote for him and never admit it, like 40 million others".

      The polls this year lack veracity for that reason. I see what the USC/LAT people are doing, and it's interesting, but who knows whether that is real, either.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    7. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only positive thing from this is that many republicans condemn his actions and declare to not support him anymore, so his chances of becoming president sink.

      Have you people not got the message yet that the voters have completely rejected the neocon GOP establishment? No one cares what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and the rest of those quisling faggots have to say.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    8. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      In general I don't think the polls are to be trusted this year. Polling is objective data derived from a subjective process, and the polls are all based on the assumption that the demographic mix of voters this year will be the same was it was in 2012. But there is no way blacks are going to come out for Hildawg the way they came out for Black Jesus, and no one has spoken to the white working class (or any working class) like Trump has in 50 years. I do not know what the correct method should be, and I don't know what the results will be, but I have not seen any pollsters validate their assumptions, so I don't see how they can be right.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      For all the people claiming "he can't win", there is a extremely large population of Americans that long for 1950's and will vote that way, no matter what they say in the polls.

      Just like Romney thought he had won in 2012 .... oh wait.

      But yes, you are right. On the other hand the same thing is true for Clinton voters.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trump is a very bad choice for president, but locker room talk really is not why he should be avoided.

      Agreed. He should be avoided for the stupidity he showed in making those comments while wearing a microphone. And, let's head off the idea that he thought the microphone was off: what's the first rule about wearing a microphone? Assume that it is on and recording.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 1

      Romney failed to drive turnout. Period. No one wanted to vote for him for any positive reason - it was all "we hate Obama". Still, with that, he came fairly close to winning.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    12. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Probably our only chance for meaningful change..

      Oh, yes. Trump would bring change. The question is: is it the type of change you want?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 1, Insightful

      At this point, any change is better than the status quo. Just waiting for the bottom to fall out of the economy again or another foreign war started by that harridan neocon warmonger...no.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    14. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by swillden · · Score: 1

      At this point, any change is better than the status quo.

      "Any". I do not think that word means what you think it means. You must be mentally bounding "any" with some sort of limitations on what it could mean, because your statement is clearly false on its face. I can think of lots of things that the president of the United States could do that would leave us far worse off than the status quo.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by HBI · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trump isn't going to get rid of representative elections in the next 4-8 years, if that's what you mean. Clinton...who knows. I actually don't have 100% confidence that that wouldn't be the result of her election.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    16. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by GNious · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, there are a lot of people who will behave differently inside a voting booth than outside of it?

      This is a pretty well-know scenario - when polled, people answer partly based on social expectations, but in the voting-booth it is solely their own opinion that matters.

      Yes, that means there'll be reluctant Trump-supporters, who won't admit who they are voting for when polled, but will vote Trump on election day.

      Have fun

    17. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by swillden · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Trump isn't going to get rid of representative elections in the next 4-8 years, if that's what you mean.

      No, I'm thinking mostly of the damage he can do as command in chief, and as our chief diplomat.

      Clinton...who knows. I actually don't have 100% confidence that that wouldn't be the result of her election.

      There's no way a president could do that, short of declaring martial law, and I think Trump is far more likely to do that than Clinton. In either case, I don't think it would stand if they did.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by whoever57 · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to assume that you are an idiot and move on.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      So, a world-wide nuclear war that destroys humanity and the planetary ecosystem over Chinese expansion via their built-up islands is better than "the status quo"?

    20. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) who said he was wearing the microphone and not someone near him?
      2) Since when does Trump care if you know what he thinks?

    21. Re:Harassing the security apparatus is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So any bad things Trump attempts will fail. All the politicians and power brokers hate him. Worst case it's like theres no President for 4 years.
      Clinton on the other hand, has the money and power and backing to push through whatever evil shit she wants. And theres nothing you can do to stop it.

  2. Speaking of contradictions... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The summary presents one itself.

    But three former Yahoo employee have now said that actually the court-ordered search "was done by a module attached to the Linux kernel -- in other words, it was deeply buried near the core of the email server operating system, far below where mail sorting was handled... They said that made it hard to detect and also made it hard to figure out what the program was doing."

    versus

    If the reports about the Yahoo order are accurate -- including requiring the company to custom build new software to accomplish the scanning ...

    Surely if the Yahoo employees custom-built the kernel module, they wouldn't have found it "hard to figure out what the program was doing". So were they handed a module and ordered to install it, or were they ordered to write custom code? If the first submission is accurate, the second submission is irrelevant - and vice-versa.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. The module could easily just have been something like a shell that only the FBI could open remotely.

    2. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by RelaxedTension · · Score: 2

      I think it's pretty safe to say the employees that would have been involved with writing it would be under a serious gag order. The employees talking about this are clearly not those same employees, and had nothing to do with writing it.

      I would hope that they were at least smart enough to keep any changes like that in-house. Trusting code they give you, especially a kernel module, would be epic stupidity.

    3. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by speedplane · · Score: 1

      But three former Yahoo employee have now said that actually the court-ordered search "was done by a module attached to the Linux kernel -- in other words, it was deeply buried near the core of the email server operating system, far below where mail sorting was handled... They said that made it hard to detect and also made it hard to figure out what the program was doing."

      Why is this a contradiction? Yahoo deals with billions of messages of a day. It's entirely possible that Yahoo built Kernel modules to handle mail sorting to squeeze out more performance from the kernel.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    4. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by sniper86 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the alleged kernel module was built on top of the netfilter code, doing deep packet inspection via xt_string. Theoretically such a system could be constructed to add hidden match rules from an iptables list from userspace, much like past Linux malware has run tasks not listed on the process table.

    5. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      So were they handed a module and ordered to install it, or were they ordered to write custom code?

      There would have to be more involvement from Yahoo. Kernel modules have to be built against the correct kernel version. Upgrades to the kernel would have to be coordinated with the NSA/FBI/whoever to ensure that the upgrade did not remove the scanning module.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Why is this a contradiction? Yahoo deals with billions of messages of a day. It's entirely possible that Yahoo built Kernel modules to handle mail sorting to squeeze out more performance from the kernel.

      I wonder if they have a hybrid/shim approach, like FUSE, or the nVidia modules, which allow the actual module to be somewhat independent of the kernel (and perhaps run in user space), but be more tightly integrated into the kernel than normal user space code?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The GPP is confused.

      The people who are supposed to be confused by the kernel module are not the people who wrote it, but the people who would be doing sweeps for state-sponsored malware surreptitiously installed on Yahoo's systems.

    8. Re:Speaking of contradictions... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If they can order Yahoo to write new code, they can probably order them to install outside code. I don't think a search warrant should extend to unpaid work not involved with turning over evidence you already have access to.

  3. locker room talk? by MooseTick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've heard "locker room talk", and it was nowhere near as crude as what he was saying. I've never heard any guy casually talking/bragging about forcing themselves on women.

    --
    Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
    1. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Then you must be a female!

    2. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I've heard many locker rooms talking about wanting pussy, and the dumb bitches who give it up on sight because you are a "somebody".

      Those who never did, are just jealous of us "somebody's" who get pussy without much effort.

    3. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard "locker room talk" between guys too, for about 40 years so far, and everyone does it. I've heard a lot worse, and any guy that says they never talked that way is a liar. I've heard women talk the same way to other women, so it's not just the guys using gutter talk. The only thing Trump got wrong was getting caught off guard with a live microphone. I'd like to hear some of the conversations from the Clitons, especially around the time when Bill was getting BJs in the oval office, it would probably make Trump look like an altar boy.

    4. Re: locker room talk? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have heard and said things that lewd but I've never heard or said anything that rapey. Vulgar language is not the main problem here. Trump suggested that he got away with sexual assault, that's the main problem.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've heard "locker room talk" between guys too, for about 40 years so far, and everyone does it. I've heard a lot worse, and any guy that says they never talked that way is a liar.

      I've never talked this way. Sex is not a subject I have any interest in talking about with other guys-- it's a "none of their god-damned business" subject with me.

      If other guys had talked this way around me, I would assume they were lying. Guys brag about getting laid because they aren't actually getting laid.

    6. Re: locker room talk? by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a big difference between a guy saying "I want pussy" or saying "take Pam out for a cheap dinner and she'll give you all the head you want" and saying what Trump said. The offensive part isn't that he said the word "pussy". The offense is that he said he can just walk up to a random woman and touch her in the groin without asking and that he'll get away with it because he's important. So do you really want to make him one of the most important people in the world, when he's already proud of being able to get away with sexual assault?

    7. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard "locker room talk", and it was nowhere near as crude as what he was saying. I've never heard any guy casually talking/bragging about forcing themselves on women.

      I have. Heck, I was on a job once where the inside joke was "hit her in the hair" (the joke being that any mark left would be less apparent). We average 1-2 police incidents a year (mainly prostitution, property destruction, drugs, etc). Only about 1/3 of our workforce can perform work in Canada due to DUI's and other various felonies. Traveling millwrights / welders / machinists live a pretty rough life and almost all of them have a book full of crazy stories. Just imagine what happens when you send a 20-year old kid from a relatively low-income family to Mexico and pay him $25 USD an hour.

    8. Re: locker room talk? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      I've heard locker room talk like this, and then too, I felt the guy involved was more-than-likely powerful, creepy, spoiled, and quite capably a rapist.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    9. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, only a moron who's self-esteem is defined by the number of women he's "Banged", who's bragging about banging a women with even less self-esteem like Pam, because he's got no real worth and hasn't done anything for society whatsoever, would believe such absolute nonsense.

      Only an Imbecile like Clinton would try to have sex with Interns. You really, in that position of power, have to be a complete imbecile. Clinton has money, Trump has even more money, not hard to get a prostitute. They are cleaner, less risky, the services are more professional, and there are no strings attached. Frankly these days, with all the "free love" and women being told sex is for entertainment not reproduction going on, it's probably preferable and far more constructive to copulate with an individual who has a defined business interest in keeping themselves clean, non-pregnant, and STD free rather than some tramp who is confused 9 ways from Sunday about why she's there.

      Every great man throughout history has had their mistresses; it keeps them from getting into debacles like Bill Clinton did. Used to be women were expected to have chastity, and were trained to assault men when they are assaulted, and nobody questioned them when they slapped a man. All those old movies where the powerful business magnate kisses a women, gets slapped hard, and kisses her again; that was overcoming the training.

    10. Re: locker room talk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, locker room talk is off color and you probably wouldn't want your mother to listen. Nobody would be upset if it was limited to that though. Boasting of sexual assault is not normal. Professional sportsmen would be risking their contract if they were caught doing that on camera.

      By the way, why drive to compare the behaviour of a presidential candidate to that of a poorly socialised athlete? It doesn't justify anything.

  4. Be sure to Correct Our Record. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be sure to Correct Our Record.

  5. If Accurate... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "If the reports about the Yahoo order are accurate -- including requiring the company to custom build new software to accomplish the scanning"

    I do believe there is a law out there that forbids the federal government from requiring companies to build things a specific way or design specific things specifically for the US Gov't. Slashdot has discussed this many times in the comments regarding the iPhone. The Gov't has no legal power to compel Yahoo or any other entity to do their bidding in this manner and some /.er has pointed this law out several times.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:If Accurate... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The ability to find languages, crypto, images, draft accounts been logged into and shared.
      A site next door or in the same city or at the first big telco hub was not selected.
      Re " or any other entity to do their bidding in this manner and some /.er has pointed this law out several times."
      The ability to suggest help can be worked on:
      "The Telecom Exec Who Refused to Let the NSA Spy Is Out of Prison, and He's Talking" October 1, 2013
      http://motherboard.vice.com/bl...
      "His was the only company to resist handing over access to customers' phone records to the NSA without permission from the FISA court."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. I know you are an idiot. by HBI · · Score: 0

    Apparently you think someone who is completely lawless - Clinton - is just peachy.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  7. The Big Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much cash, $3 Million maybe, did Her Fuhrer Marissa get?

    ?

  8. Just assume the worst is the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... since the government has already lied (contradicting stories) about it and will continue to do so, even when legally required to disclose all the facts.

    The only way this state of affairs (for this and similar scenarios) will change is when we get a law that says that when some entity (e.g. government branch) is required to come clean and their report is false or incomplete, that anyone who knows differently is REQUIRED to come forward with the truth and will be protected from retribution. Not coming forward would itself be a punishable offence, so the CEOs or VPs that know something will go to jail if they don't speak up.

  9. Goldwater Girl by HBI · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that the harridan warmonger wouldn't be the one to push the button? Remember she was a Goldwater Girl. She still is.

    Go watch the 1964 anti-Goldwater ad with the mushroom clouds to get the picture.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.