Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
When has that ever worked with an addictive substance? When you arrest drug users it doesn't result in a decrease in demand or supply. What it results in is more people being arrested and smarter suppliers.
Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
That works so well with drugs right? The supply in the case of child porn if it's created to make money could be reduced that way but then if it's about money the government could set up websites to sting people who pay money for child porn.
If you're talking about child molestation, I don't think money has anything to do with it. So I don't see how we can arrest our way out of it. And like I said previously it hasn't worked on drugs so why would that strategy work here?
At the end of the day if the law doesn't protect people and/or property, and if there isn't victim, it should not be a crime. That's pure logic, accept.
The child who is asked to engage in sexual acts for the camera would disagree about it being victimless. The distribution of child porn doesn't harm anyone, fair enough, but the demand for it is the cause of the crime, and the crime harms people, so if you make possession and distribution illegal, it will ostensibly reduce the number of children exploited. That said, criminalizing cartoon or written depictions of underage sex is a true victimless crime; and if you made that argument against those abstractions, I'd agree with you. But 'real' child porn is not a victimless crime.
The demand for is isn't the cause of child molestation which is the actual crime. Children would be molested whether it were filmed or not. Just like the demand of rotten.com hasn't resulted in a spike in murders.
I never said the production of child porn doesn't produce the victim. I'm saying the viewing of child porn doesn't create any victims. Possession of child porn doesn't indicate that the person possessing it is the maker of it and if they aren't making it then in that case they are arrested for having gross thoughts rather than for victimizing anyone.
Child pornography results in long prison sentences and sex offender list status for anyone caught possessing it.
This makes child pornography a virus because being infected by it damages whoever is hosting it. It's only a virus because the legal system treats it like a virus. Honestly it's a victimless crime to possess anything, and it's a thought crime to arrest people for possession of information, but it's America and parents, religious people and others in society typically are irrational. As a result there are victimless crimes.
All pornography is treated like child porn in some places so some societies treat it all like a virus. Honestly the USA cannot be critical of censorship in other countries when we have our own passions that we enforce with censorship and thought control enforcement. Just by making this post I'm expecting to be condemned by an emotional parent feeling either fear for their children or intense anger that I would post this.
At the end of the day if the law doesn't protect people and/or property, and if there isn't victim, it should not be a crime. That's pure logic, accept.
What do they gain by announcing to the media that they decoded Al Qaeda's secret files?
Now every potential terrorist can learn what the USA is capable of or not capable of. It also alerts the terrorists using steganography in this way that the US government is onto them and this could trigger much more sophisticated methods which the US government wont be able to deal with.
So I don't see the point to it being in the media. I do understand why it's on Slashdot and I would expect to see it here but I also saw it on CNN. Generally its a very difficult problem to track down and detect terrorists and it's the job of the NSA.
That sort of argument is unlikely to fly in front of a jury given all the other evidence against him. Bear in mind this wasn't just a random stop-and-search, they already suspected he was an al-Qaeda member. He tried to hide the incriminating files. Probably more that isn't in the story.
Having said that, I think this sort of story just re-inforces the general impression that the counter-terrorism apparatus is way too big for the size of the threat it presently faces. If this is the way AQ move sensitive files around, they are clearly unable to recruit members with any technical sophistication. I can easily believe intelligence agencies have got a lot better over time, not to mention ruthless and focused, but it seems that if these guys can pull off a devastating attack then basically anyone can and we may as well give up now. No need for "training in Pakistan" for those guys.
If this guy really is a terrorist and they really did recover these encoded files they wouldn't be announcing it in the news as that is irresponsible and stupid.
So why is it being announced? It should be classified.
Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
It runs on ZeroBin, which uses client side javascript to generate a random 256bit AES key, then compress and encrypt the text before sending it to the server. Comments are also compressed and encrypted. The key is never seen by the server, so the server can't decrypt your data.
Not very long ago some people came under investigation for not having a mobile phone, or not taking their mobile phone into a meeting, meaning they couldn't be tracked. This was considered to be highly suspicious behavior and probably illegal. Soon, it will be mandatory for all new cars in the States to have black box data recorders to monitor all their movements in real time. What could possibly go wrong with that? And the next step? Probably sometime soon, people like you, elucido, will decide that it's fine for the government to surgically implant GPS trackers in everyone's heads. Why wouldn't you want them to be able to track you, after all, if you have nothing to hide?
I don't make those types of decisions. In fact I don't decide any of this. Don't try to pin the blame on me.
According to what Pastebin says about Anonpaste just using Anonpaste could mean you have something to hide and if you have something to hide it means you need to be investigated.
Although Anonymous has used the news of AnonPaste to taunt Pastebin, Vader isn't worried about the popularity of his own site. He does see problems with the general idea of the new paste site though. "Having this new anonymous paste service online will most likely mean that less 'sensitive information' is posted on Pastebin.com, which we like," Vader told Ars, "But we think this new totally anonymous Paste site will be used mainly by people who have something to hide, people who are posting things that really shouldn't be posted. We see no benefit for normal legitimate users to use it over the currently existing paste websites. We are afraid that this site will be bombarded with people's personal information, credit-card details, and things such as child pornography."
If you use Anonpaste then the governments will claim you're a credit card thief, a child pornography, or a terrorist, because why else would you want to use something like Anonpaste?
My advice is don't post on Anonpaste. Read Anonpaste but don't post a damn thing. If someone really knows what they are doing they probably don't need Anonpaste but if they somehow did then they weighed the risks already.
Probably not; more like one URL and a decryption key that would be pasted in somewhere. Really though, an extension like FireGPG that provides this capability would be a lot better -- I do not want to trust some server to send me my decryption program every time I want to access a file. This may even be worse than Hushmail, since any of the people who are accessing the file could be targeted; the server could merely flag the data it wants to decrypt, and wait for the first person with that URL to come along and open it.
If it's a honeypot it's not going to work anyway. But honestly I don't see the PLF offering a honeypot. Anonymous and the PLF are two different entities. PLF are serious and are highly skilled while Anonymous is populated but anybody whether they are serious with skills or just teenagers looking for lulz.
Trying another false-flag operation? Going for #Anti-Sec 2?
It's not that simple although I do see your point considering Sabu was their snitch. I doubt the FBI infiltrated the PLF though. PLF are far more skilled and very much professionals.
I'll say it again, anyone who actually has a need to use encryption of this sort properly would need specialized skills to begin with. The PLF is not going to provide any sort of training. So basically if you have a need to use this then you already know how to become Anonymous on the internet. If you don't then you shouldn't be using something like this in the first place.
And no I don't think it's about the FBI because there are intelligence agencies all around the world other than the FBI who wont like this either. It's all the global government agencies that will hate this in general. It's global government agencies vs Anonymous.
I suspect that it was because.tk is free... If they wanted to pay for a domain, then some Anonymous member would likely have to give up some personal details... (Disclaimer, haven't read TFA so what I said could be complete bull.)
But since they aren't giving us detailed technical specifications we "experts" cannot check it to determine what those problems might be. I'd like to discuss the technical specifications but I would think something like this would have to be set up with a special protocol and decentralized DNS. I would expect it to be on the darknet.
...we already have lots of ways to do this. We can encrypt and post to Usenet. We can use extensions like FireGPG to encrypt on post to websites. So why use a system where we place all our trust in the service provider, which is both theoretically risky and has failed in the past:
The other problem is it takes specialists to actually use this encryption in the context they are talking about. Anyone with the special skills to have to use this sort of encryption would exercise great caution.
That website Anonpaste is going to have to have a darknet backend of some sort. It's also going to need a distributed decentralized DNS because governments are going to attack the DNS when they figure out they cannot DDOS the servers.
Finally these servers have to be protected and secure. The best place to put them would be in bunkers, caves, and other hard to reach places. If they finally got up that satellite dish they were talking about launching then they could use that too.
Sorry, the whole story doesn't make much sense. If anyone can access the pastebin, then anyone can see its contents, including the server, no matter how encrypted the data is stored on it. If not anyone can access the server then it's not a public pastebin, but an encrypted fileserver and whoever accesses it would need to password first.
The smart way is just to encrypt your data with PGP or AES and then upload it to piratepad.
This Anonpaste wont be useful unless you connect to it anonymously. What they are promising is they wont censor your shit if you post something tragic.
It claims that data is encrypted and decrypted in the browser using 256 bit AES, so the server doesn't see any of the information included in the paste.
And where does the key come from? If from the server, then the data is not encrypted at all.
Interrogation does not include coercion. I keep trying to explain that to you. All interrogation includes is asking questions. That's what the word means.
Should I worry about coercion? Of course. Should I worry about interrogation? No, ask away, I don't have to answer. Interrogation is not another word for coercion, interrogation does not include coercion. We have separate words for separate concepts.
How do you explain interrogation when it does include coercion? And if it has happened in the past why should we believe authorities wont use coercion in the future? Are there different people in charge? Different laws?
The combination of interrogation with coercion is bad.
I'm glad we agree it's bad. How can we prevent this combination from occurring?
Two separate words for two separate concepts. It's not the interrogation that makes the combination bad, it's the coercion. We don't have a name for that combination. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be precise, we need to use both words when describing that combination.
There is also the problem that when you give so much power to so few people there probability of abuse increases. If coercion can happen it probably does, so how can we make it should it can't happen if we are serious about preventing it? We are talking about a government which knows everything about the person they are interrogating, knows every possible button they can push, it might not even look like coercion to anyone but the people asking the questions and the people doing the questioning so knowing whether or not it is or isn't coercion is very difficult.
People are sloppy. Sometimes they misuse a word as shorthand for a longer description. Using "interrogation" as shorthand for "coerced interrogation" is a misuse. You can tell from context when people are misusing words like this, and if it isn't clear, you should assume the proper definition. When the FBI says "advance the science of interrogation", they mean that they want to know how to ask better questions. Asking questions is an art. Some people are better at it than others. The FBI would like to add a little science to that art,
If the FBI knows everything about the person they are questioning then their question might be scientifically precise but it may not overtly be coercive. You or I might not know what is someones soft spot or trigger question but the FBI probably would know this. The FBI would know which words to use, how to say it, so that if coercion is involved it would look like it's not coercion. This is why people have a right to remain silent and probably shouldn't talk to the FBI in this scenario without a lawyer. The FBI can set traps in the questions themselves which could incriminate someone or they could ask questions which to the person receiving it might be perceived as a veiled threat. This is why it's not as simple as just knowing the semantics and trusting the FBI to be responsible as if they have a history of responsible behavior in those situations.
so they can train their people to ask questions that get them better answers. There's nothing wrong with that, there's no threat in that. I used to provide technical support to sales, so I went to many sales training classes. Some of those classes taught me how to ask better questions. What's wrong with getting a better understanding of what the customer needs?
The FBI does not treat suspects as customers and the FBI does not have to respect the suspects rights and in some situations the suspect really has no rights. So how can we trust an organization which through it's history has ignored human rights in order to get answers? Do you trust a corporation that has a really bad track record with customers?
Your concerns are legitimate. But you're using the wrong words for them. You shouldn't fear interrogation. You should fear beatings, co
Because the FBI doesn't want to waste its time. More effective interrogation techniques means more guilty people get caught up, and more innocent people don't get hassled. Most law enforcement people just want to clear the case, and then have it stand up in court. By having better and scientifically vetted interrogation techniques, they will be able to do this.
That is what the FBI said with the drone nonsense. The unmanned drones were to be used to fight terrorists and now of course they are used to watch all of us. How is that good for the community?
If the goal is to cut down on crime then use having better interrogation and intense surveillance will do that but at the same time it will increase incarceration rates and destroy communities. So there has to be a balance here and a purpose with regard to using technology in policing. If the goal is simply to get maximum arrests and maximum incarceration then I'm not for that goal because that's bad for America.
If the goal is to protect national security that is a different goal but that has nothing to do with arrest rates and more to do with stopping terrorism.The problem is terrorism can later on be made to include all sorts of people who don't fit as terrorists today so it's also important that we once and for all clearly define who and what a terrorist is and who these resources should target. If we target something vague like "criminals" then that's not the same as something specific like "domestic terrorists".
As others have pointed out, torture generally does not lead to useful intelligence. It leads to hearing exactly what the torture victim thinks you want to hear.
The FBI is obviously working on advancing the state of the art of educing information. Effective educing generally does not include torture. A detailed examination of various techniqure is here (pdf).
The problem is the FBI expects various communities across the United States to take their word after they already have done all the things everyone is afraid of. Does the FBI ever make a case for why it needs new powers other than because they say so?
Can you explain how these new techniques can protect the nation? And can you guarantee these techniques wont be used on us? Government agencies always induce fear so they can take more power and then years later we find those new powers used against us.
What about those unmanned drones? Now they want to let police use unmanned drones and satellites. Are you okay with that?
. It means asking questions, making in what you know" IS interrogation.
quiries.
Interrogation does not mean coercion.
But if interrogation includes coercion then it's not merely asking questions. If the person being questioned cannot leave until they answer it the right way then it's still considered interrogation and it's still considered fair game.
Do you not see the problems this can present? People will give the government any answer just so they can have an end to the interrogation. Psychologically speaking people in general do not like being interrogated.
. It does not means making threats. It does not mean beating people up. It does not mean torture. It means asking questions
But the fact remains that it can include coercive questioning and there isn't any mechanism to prevent this from taking place. Do the people being interrogated have any rights? And even if they did would it matter if the Constitution is ignored?
. Let me give you a few examples. Your neighbors get into a fight one night. It's 2AM and they're standing in the middle of the road screaming at each other. Someone calls the police. The police show up, separate the husband and wife, and take the man down to the station for questioning. The police use rather precise jargon for each step in the process. First, the police detain the husband. Detain, not arrest, because arrest means charging with a crime. They don't yet know if he should be charged, or she should be charged, but they will detain one or both. Detain means to hold. Detain does not mean arrest. Detain does not mean question. Detain does not mean handcuff, which brings up another term: restraints.
Next, the police transport him. In other words, they put him in the back of a police car and take him to the station. Then they interrogate him. They ask him questions. He doesn't need to answer, other than to identify himself.
At any point, they could have beat him. They could have beat him while they were detaining him. They could have beat him while they were putting him in the car. They could have beat him while they were asking questions. But none of the words mean beat; detain does not mean beat, transport does not mean beat, interrogate does not mean beat.
I know what the words mean. The fact is who is going to be looking if they did decide to beat him? Who is going to stop them if they beat some sense into him or try to force him to talk? You're assuming the police have to follow the laws when in reality if we are talking about intelligence agencies they don't have to follow the laws and that is why everyone gets terrified when they use the word "interrogation" because their forms of interrogation aren't the same as the law abiding forms.
. The fact that two actions can happen at the same time does not make the words we use for those actions interchangeable. You can be tortured at the same time as you are being interrogated, and you can be eating a meal at the same time as you are being interrogated. Interrogation refers to the questioning, not the eating or torture.
Interrogation is the act of asking questions or inquiring.
The fact that it can happen and nothing is in place specifically to stop it from happening is why people are worried.concerned it could happen. The article is phrased with "advance the science of interrogation", and says it's what the FBI wants. The FBI also wants to and does ignore the Constitution as a layman would understand it. The FBI does not follow the Constitution during a time of war, and neither do the other intelligence agencies. If you look up the history of the FBI then you would understand why alarm bells ring when the FBI uses the word "interrogation".
And the fact that they want to advance the science of it, well who do they test these new techniques on and how do they intend to do that? No I don't trust intelligence agencies and neither should you. They are shady and always have been, and they always say they are doing it for our own good even when we are the suspect.
Absolutely we need to sit down in a room with someone and interrogate them. We learned that lesson when we went into Bosnia, after the Clinton administration had gutted the HUMINT assets of our country because of all the great things our technology could do. Then we quickly realized all the things that technology can't do. All those drones and satellites can't see inside buildings or caves. They can't tell if that farm truck was loading fertilizer to be used for fertilizing or for building bombs.
Not everybody lives with a phone attached to themselves 24/7. Many of those who seek to do us harm know to avoid electronic communications as much as possible.
Thus comes in to play Human Intelligence collection and Interrogation of suspects and accomplices. We know this guy went into the barn where the truck load of fertilizer was delivered. The building that is miles from the nearest phone line we could tap. If we can get him talking, he can tell us what the "Farmer" is doing with the fertilizer. Is he really spreading all the fertilizer on the field or is he spreading a little mixed in with dirt from the barn floor to fool the drones? Where are the bombs going to be placed? When are they going to be placed and so on.
Technology is great but we've been burned before by relying too heavily on it. Ultimately it comes down to finding the right guy to talk to and then talking to him, at length and not necessarily at his will. But do not confuse Interrogation and torture. They are not synonymous in the least. Interrogation is one of the most effective investigative tool our law enforcement have. Yes everybody has the right to remain silent, but many do not have the intelligence to do so. And as long as they haven't invoked their rights, an interrogator can ask questions, and get answers without the subject even saying anything. Body language gives all kinds of information. Further even those who have invoked their rights, will often still end up speaking with an interrogator, just with their lawyer present. Again, with a capable interrogator even with a lawyer present, they give up all kinds of information even if the lawyer doesn't let them say a thing.
Take it outside the criminal arena to the intelligence collection field, where Lawyers and the 5th amendment seldom have any say in the matter (the various Geneva and other conventions do) and again we are able to extract great deals of information. And Torture is not necessary or even desired.
I know hating the US and or it's intelligence community is the popular thing to do here on slashdot, but your hate here is miss-guided. They are seeking to make a very valuable and effective skill more effective, to help further stave off the temptation to look to the "enhanced techniques" that border on and even cross over into torture. We don't want to do that. We want to get the information quickly and humanly.
As to surveillance, yea right, how you going to surveil an individual through a foreign country with the resources we have. Most our agents, regardless of agency, are obviously American or at least western European. Surveillance is a practiced skill, that becomes immensely harder when nobody on your team can blend in with the local population. Don't believe the movies. I've yet to see a good demonstration of discreet surveillance in a movie.
I understand what you are saying but isn't that the job of the CIA? The problem I have with this is that these interrogation techniques may someday be turned against American citizens and used on American communities because some law maker decides to pass some dumbass law which criminalizes enough people. The USA is currently politically unstable, and many people don't agree with the current focus of the law enforcement.
FBI is law enforcement not military. If this interrogation were to only be used for protecting national security I wouldn't have such a problem with it. Bosnia was an issue of national security, and the people being interr
You really think with all the drones, spy satellites, wiretapped internet, hidden cameras and informants everywhere that they'd need to sit someone down in a room and interrogate them?
There are limitations to technology, and the cameras and wiretaps aren't everywhere yet.
When you're talking about crime why do you feel it's okay to interrogate any suspects? The suspect has a right to remain silent. There is no reason to interrogate anyone based on anything other than national security and I'm not convinced interrogation is the key to national security.
That's completely stupid. You interrogate people because even if they have a right to remain silent they still talk anyway! And very often people actually give you correct information that incriminates them.
And how does the government make people talk? That is the coercive interrogation I'm concerned about.
If people want to talk then you don't even need an interrogation. You can just do all of that covertly and not have an overt interrogation and avoid all the intimidation. If people don't want to talk and if national security is not on the line why should the FBI have the ability to try and force people to talk?
The only instance I can think of where it makes sense to force people to talk are when lives are at stake or when it's a national security type situation. Most of the people actually being arrested however seem to be stupid kids and drug dealers. If the FBI were putting it's resources into violent crimes and into national security then their request might be more justifiable. What I'm saying is why give broad powers to interrogate anyone for any crime when you can restrict those powers or try to?
Because the government can't see everything you thick twat.
The government can see more than we think.
They might not see everything but the sort of interrogations they have today for the same of excuses they claim to use them for seems to be over done. If you think interrogations are so valuable find a situation where we'd all agree interrogation is a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
When has that ever worked with an addictive substance? When you arrest drug users it doesn't result in a decrease in demand or supply. What it results in is more people being arrested and smarter suppliers.
If you cut the demand, you cut the supply.
Since the supply side involves horrendous abuse by perverted sickos who are undeterred by even life without parole (which is mandatory in many cases for these crimes), cutting off the demand and thus removing the incentive for the supply to exist could help reduce the horrible victimization that occurs.
That works so well with drugs right? The supply in the case of child porn if it's created to make money could be reduced that way but then if it's about money the government could set up websites to sting people who pay money for child porn.
If you're talking about child molestation, I don't think money has anything to do with it. So I don't see how we can arrest our way out of it. And like I said previously it hasn't worked on drugs so why would that strategy work here?
At the end of the day if the law doesn't protect people and/or property, and if there isn't victim, it should not be a crime. That's pure logic, accept.
The child who is asked to engage in sexual acts for the camera would disagree about it being victimless. The distribution of child porn doesn't harm anyone, fair enough, but the demand for it is the cause of the crime, and the crime harms people, so if you make possession and distribution illegal, it will ostensibly reduce the number of children exploited. That said, criminalizing cartoon or written depictions of underage sex is a true victimless crime; and if you made that argument against those abstractions, I'd agree with you. But 'real' child porn is not a victimless crime.
The demand for is isn't the cause of child molestation which is the actual crime. Children would be molested whether it were filmed or not. Just like the demand of rotten.com hasn't resulted in a spike in murders.
I never said the production of child porn doesn't produce the victim. I'm saying the viewing of child porn doesn't create any victims. Possession of child porn doesn't indicate that the person possessing it is the maker of it and if they aren't making it then in that case they are arrested for having gross thoughts rather than for victimizing anyone.
Child pornography results in long prison sentences and sex offender list status for anyone caught possessing it.
This makes child pornography a virus because being infected by it damages whoever is hosting it. It's only a virus because the legal system treats it like a virus. Honestly it's a victimless crime to possess anything, and it's a thought crime to arrest people for possession of information, but it's America and parents, religious people and others in society typically are irrational. As a result there are victimless crimes.
All pornography is treated like child porn in some places so some societies treat it all like a virus. Honestly the USA cannot be critical of censorship in other countries when we have our own passions that we enforce with censorship and thought control enforcement. Just by making this post I'm expecting to be condemned by an emotional parent feeling either fear for their children or intense anger that I would post this.
At the end of the day if the law doesn't protect people and/or property, and if there isn't victim, it should not be a crime. That's pure logic, accept.
What do they gain by announcing to the media that they decoded Al Qaeda's secret files?
Now every potential terrorist can learn what the USA is capable of or not capable of. It also alerts the terrorists using steganography in this way that the US government is onto them and this could trigger much more sophisticated methods which the US government wont be able to deal with.
So I don't see the point to it being in the media. I do understand why it's on Slashdot and I would expect to see it here but I also saw it on CNN. Generally its a very difficult problem to track down and detect terrorists and it's the job of the NSA.
If he really is a terrorist why announce that we know how to break their codes and read their messages?
Maybe we shouldn't have.
That sort of argument is unlikely to fly in front of a jury given all the other evidence against him. Bear in mind this wasn't just a random stop-and-search, they already suspected he was an al-Qaeda member. He tried to hide the incriminating files. Probably more that isn't in the story.
Having said that, I think this sort of story just re-inforces the general impression that the counter-terrorism apparatus is way too big for the size of the threat it presently faces. If this is the way AQ move sensitive files around, they are clearly unable to recruit members with any technical sophistication. I can easily believe intelligence agencies have got a lot better over time, not to mention ruthless and focused, but it seems that if these guys can pull off a devastating attack then basically anyone can and we may as well give up now. No need for "training in Pakistan" for those guys.
If this guy really is a terrorist and they really did recover these encoded files they wouldn't be announcing it in the news as that is irresponsible and stupid.
So why is it being announced? It should be classified.
Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
Of course, a terrorist group wouldn't use one of the most widely-distributed types of video to conceal information in plain sight, knowing that communication with the actual target would be concealed by the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of others downloading it.
Absent the decryption key and/or software, I can't see a solid basis for destroying this guy's life. Of course, that won't stop them. New terrorist strategy: Make everyone a terrorist by distributing encoded terrorist documents.
That is why there is an NSA.
It runs on ZeroBin, which uses client side javascript to generate a random 256bit AES key, then compress and encrypt the text before sending it to the server. Comments are also compressed and encrypted. The key is never seen by the server, so the server can't decrypt your data.
It uses the Stanford Javascript Crypto Library for its AES code, and its codebase is available on github.
The system is vulnerable to an MITM attack, also a server admin may be able to reveal the poster's identity, but not the post's content
Revealing the posters identity is worse than revealing the posters content! That is a huge security hole.
Also where is the key stored? Expect the government to investigate and interrogate whoever has the keys.
Not very long ago some people came under investigation for not having a mobile phone, or not taking their mobile phone into a meeting, meaning they couldn't be tracked. This was considered to be highly suspicious behavior and probably illegal. Soon, it will be mandatory for all new cars in the States to have black box data recorders to monitor all their movements in real time. What could possibly go wrong with that? And the next step? Probably sometime soon, people like you, elucido, will decide that it's fine for the government to surgically implant GPS trackers in everyone's heads. Why wouldn't you want them to be able to track you, after all, if you have nothing to hide?
I don't make those types of decisions. In fact I don't decide any of this. Don't try to pin the blame on me.
According to what Pastebin says about Anonpaste just using Anonpaste could mean you have something to hide and if you have something to hide it means you need to be investigated.
Although Anonymous has used the news of AnonPaste to taunt Pastebin, Vader isn't worried about the popularity of his own site. He does see problems with the general idea of the new paste site though. "Having this new anonymous paste service online will most likely mean that less 'sensitive information' is posted on Pastebin.com, which we like," Vader told Ars, "But we think this new totally anonymous Paste site will be used mainly by people who have something to hide, people who are posting things that really shouldn't be posted. We see no benefit for normal legitimate users to use it over the currently existing paste websites. We are afraid that this site will be bombarded with people's personal information, credit-card details, and things such as child pornography."
If you use Anonpaste then the governments will claim you're a credit card thief, a child pornography, or a terrorist, because why else would you want to use something like Anonpaste?
My advice is don't post on Anonpaste. Read Anonpaste but don't post a damn thing. If someone really knows what they are doing they probably don't need Anonpaste but if they somehow did then they weighed the risks already.
Probably not; more like one URL and a decryption key that would be pasted in somewhere. Really though, an extension like FireGPG that provides this capability would be a lot better -- I do not want to trust some server to send me my decryption program every time I want to access a file. This may even be worse than Hushmail, since any of the people who are accessing the file could be targeted; the server could merely flag the data it wants to decrypt, and wait for the first person with that URL to come along and open it.
If it's a honeypot it's not going to work anyway. But honestly I don't see the PLF offering a honeypot. Anonymous and the PLF are two different entities. PLF are serious and are highly skilled while Anonymous is populated but anybody whether they are serious with skills or just teenagers looking for lulz.
Trying another false-flag operation? Going for #Anti-Sec 2?
It's not that simple although I do see your point considering Sabu was their snitch. I doubt the FBI infiltrated the PLF though. PLF are far more skilled and very much professionals.
I'll say it again, anyone who actually has a need to use encryption of this sort properly would need specialized skills to begin with. The PLF is not going to provide any sort of training. So basically if you have a need to use this then you already know how to become Anonymous on the internet. If you don't then you shouldn't be using something like this in the first place.
And no I don't think it's about the FBI because there are intelligence agencies all around the world other than the FBI who wont like this either. It's all the global government agencies that will hate this in general. It's global government agencies vs Anonymous.
I suspect that it was because .tk is free... If they wanted to pay for a domain, then some Anonymous member would likely have to give up some personal details... (Disclaimer, haven't read TFA so what I said could be complete bull.)
But since they aren't giving us detailed technical specifications we "experts" cannot check it to determine what those problems might be. I'd like to discuss the technical specifications but I would think something like this would have to be set up with a special protocol and decentralized DNS. I would expect it to be on the darknet.
...we already have lots of ways to do this. We can encrypt and post to Usenet. We can use extensions like FireGPG to encrypt on post to websites. So why use a system where we place all our trust in the service provider, which is both theoretically risky and has failed in the past:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/encrypted-e-mai/
Exactly.
The other problem is it takes specialists to actually use this encryption in the context they are talking about. Anyone with the special skills to have to use this sort of encryption would exercise great caution.
That website Anonpaste is going to have to have a darknet backend of some sort. It's also going to need a distributed decentralized DNS because governments are going to attack the DNS when they figure out they cannot DDOS the servers.
Finally these servers have to be protected and secure. The best place to put them would be in bunkers, caves, and other hard to reach places. If they finally got up that satellite dish they were talking about launching then they could use that too.
Sorry, the whole story doesn't make much sense. If anyone can access the pastebin, then anyone can see its contents, including the server, no matter how encrypted the data is stored on it. If not anyone can access the server then it's not a public pastebin, but an encrypted fileserver and whoever accesses it would need to password first.
The smart way is just to encrypt your data with PGP or AES and then upload it to piratepad.
This Anonpaste wont be useful unless you connect to it anonymously. What they are promising is they wont censor your shit if you post something tragic.
It claims that data is encrypted and decrypted in the browser using 256 bit AES, so the server doesn't see any of the information included in the paste.
And where does the key come from? If from the server, then the data is not encrypted at all.
Shacahr
http://beta.piratepad.net/front-page/
Actually I'd say piratepad is slightly better.
Depending on how the machines are setup there could be evidence on them if they aren't properly configured.
Interrogation does not include coercion. I keep trying to explain that to you. All interrogation includes is asking questions. That's what the word means.
Should I worry about coercion? Of course. Should I worry about interrogation? No, ask away, I don't have to answer. Interrogation is not another word for coercion, interrogation does not include coercion. We have separate words for separate concepts.
How do you explain interrogation when it does include coercion? And if it has happened in the past why should we believe authorities wont use coercion in the future? Are there different people in charge? Different laws?
The combination of interrogation with coercion is bad.
I'm glad we agree it's bad. How can we prevent this combination from occurring?
Two separate words for two separate concepts. It's not the interrogation that makes the combination bad, it's the coercion. We don't have a name for that combination. If we want to be accurate, if we want to be precise, we need to use both words when describing that combination.
There is also the problem that when you give so much power to so few people there probability of abuse increases. If coercion can happen it probably does, so how can we make it should it can't happen if we are serious about preventing it? We are talking about a government which knows everything about the person they are interrogating, knows every possible button they can push, it might not even look like coercion to anyone but the people asking the questions and the people doing the questioning so knowing whether or not it is or isn't coercion is very difficult.
People are sloppy. Sometimes they misuse a word as shorthand for a longer description. Using "interrogation" as shorthand for "coerced interrogation" is a misuse. You can tell from context when people are misusing words like this, and if it isn't clear, you should assume the proper definition. When the FBI says "advance the science of interrogation", they mean that they want to know how to ask better questions. Asking questions is an art. Some people are better at it than others. The FBI would like to add a little science to that art,
If the FBI knows everything about the person they are questioning then their question might be scientifically precise but it may not overtly be coercive. You or I might not know what is someones soft spot or trigger question but the FBI probably would know this. The FBI would know which words to use, how to say it, so that if coercion is involved it would look like it's not coercion. This is why people have a right to remain silent and probably shouldn't talk to the FBI in this scenario without a lawyer. The FBI can set traps in the questions themselves which could incriminate someone or they could ask questions which to the person receiving it might be perceived as a veiled threat. This is why it's not as simple as just knowing the semantics and trusting the FBI to be responsible as if they have a history of responsible behavior in those situations.
so they can train their people to ask questions that get them better answers. There's nothing wrong with that, there's no threat in that. I used to provide technical support to sales, so I went to many sales training classes. Some of those classes taught me how to ask better questions. What's wrong with getting a better understanding of what the customer needs?
The FBI does not treat suspects as customers and the FBI does not have to respect the suspects rights and in some situations the suspect really has no rights. So how can we trust an organization which through it's history has ignored human rights in order to get answers? Do you trust a corporation that has a really bad track record with customers?
Your concerns are legitimate. But you're using the wrong words for them. You shouldn't fear interrogation. You should fear beatings, co
Because the FBI doesn't want to waste its time. More effective interrogation techniques means more guilty people get caught up, and more innocent people don't get hassled. Most law enforcement people just want to clear the case, and then have it stand up in court. By having better and scientifically vetted interrogation techniques, they will be able to do this.
That is what the FBI said with the drone nonsense. The unmanned drones were to be used to fight terrorists and now of course they are used to watch all of us. How is that good for the community?
If the goal is to cut down on crime then use having better interrogation and intense surveillance will do that but at the same time it will increase incarceration rates and destroy communities. So there has to be a balance here and a purpose with regard to using technology in policing. If the goal is simply to get maximum arrests and maximum incarceration then I'm not for that goal because that's bad for America.
If the goal is to protect national security that is a different goal but that has nothing to do with arrest rates and more to do with stopping terrorism.The problem is terrorism can later on be made to include all sorts of people who don't fit as terrorists today so it's also important that we once and for all clearly define who and what a terrorist is and who these resources should target. If we target something vague like "criminals" then that's not the same as something specific like "domestic terrorists".
As others have pointed out, torture generally does not lead to useful intelligence. It leads to hearing exactly what the torture victim thinks you want to hear.
The FBI is obviously working on advancing the state of the art of educing information. Effective educing generally does not include torture. A detailed examination of various techniqure is here (pdf).
The problem is the FBI expects various communities across the United States to take their word after they already have done all the things everyone is afraid of. Does the FBI ever make a case for why it needs new powers other than because they say so?
Can you explain how these new techniques can protect the nation? And can you guarantee these techniques wont be used on us? Government agencies always induce fear so they can take more power and then years later we find those new powers used against us.
What about those unmanned drones? Now they want to let police use unmanned drones and satellites. Are you okay with that?
. It means asking questions, making in what you know" IS interrogation.
quiries.
Interrogation does not mean coercion.
But if interrogation includes coercion then it's not merely asking questions. If the person being questioned cannot leave until they answer it the right way then it's still considered interrogation and it's still considered fair game.
Do you not see the problems this can present? People will give the government any answer just so they can have an end to the interrogation. Psychologically speaking people in general do not like being interrogated.
.
It does not means making threats. It does not mean beating people up. It does not mean torture. It means asking questions
But the fact remains that it can include coercive questioning and there isn't any mechanism to prevent this from taking place. Do the people being interrogated have any rights? And even if they did would it matter if the Constitution is ignored?
.
Let me give you a few examples. Your neighbors get into a fight one night. It's 2AM and they're standing in the middle of the road screaming at each other. Someone calls the police. The police show up, separate the husband and wife, and take the man down to the station for questioning. The police use rather precise jargon for each step in the process. First, the police detain the husband. Detain, not arrest, because arrest means charging with a crime. They don't yet know if he should be charged, or she should be charged, but they will detain one or both. Detain means to hold. Detain does not mean arrest. Detain does not mean question. Detain does not mean handcuff, which brings up another term: restraints.
Next, the police transport him. In other words, they put him in the back of a police car and take him to the station. Then they interrogate him. They ask him questions. He doesn't need to answer, other than to identify himself.
At any point, they could have beat him. They could have beat him while they were detaining him. They could have beat him while they were putting him in the car. They could have beat him while they were asking questions. But none of the words mean beat; detain does not mean beat, transport does not mean beat, interrogate does not mean beat.
I know what the words mean. The fact is who is going to be looking if they did decide to beat him? Who is going to stop them if they beat some sense into him or try to force him to talk? You're assuming the police have to follow the laws when in reality if we are talking about intelligence agencies they don't have to follow the laws and that is why everyone gets terrified when they use the word "interrogation" because their forms of interrogation aren't the same as the law abiding forms.
.
The fact that two actions can happen at the same time does not make the words we use for those actions interchangeable. You can be tortured at the same time as you are being interrogated, and you can be eating a meal at the same time as you are being interrogated. Interrogation refers to the questioning, not the eating or torture.
Interrogation is the act of asking questions or inquiring.
The fact that it can happen and nothing is in place specifically to stop it from happening is why people are worried.concerned it could happen. The article is phrased with "advance the science of interrogation", and says it's what the FBI wants. The FBI also wants to and does ignore the Constitution as a layman would understand it. The FBI does not follow the Constitution during a time of war, and neither do the other intelligence agencies. If you look up the history of the FBI then you would understand why alarm bells ring when the FBI uses the word "interrogation".
And the fact that they want to advance the science of it, well who do they test these new techniques on and how do they intend to do that? No I don't trust intelligence agencies and neither should you. They are shady and always have been, and they always say they are doing it for our own good even when we are the suspect.
Absolutely we need to sit down in a room with someone and interrogate them. We learned that lesson when we went into Bosnia, after the Clinton administration had gutted the HUMINT assets of our country because of all the great things our technology could do. Then we quickly realized all the things that technology can't do. All those drones and satellites can't see inside buildings or caves. They can't tell if that farm truck was loading fertilizer to be used for fertilizing or for building bombs.
Not everybody lives with a phone attached to themselves 24/7. Many of those who seek to do us harm know to avoid electronic communications as much as possible.
Thus comes in to play Human Intelligence collection and Interrogation of suspects and accomplices. We know this guy went into the barn where the truck load of fertilizer was delivered. The building that is miles from the nearest phone line we could tap. If we can get him talking, he can tell us what the "Farmer" is doing with the fertilizer. Is he really spreading all the fertilizer on the field or is he spreading a little mixed in with dirt from the barn floor to fool the drones? Where are the bombs going to be placed? When are they going to be placed and so on.
Technology is great but we've been burned before by relying too heavily on it. Ultimately it comes down to finding the right guy to talk to and then talking to him, at length and not necessarily at his will. But do not confuse Interrogation and torture. They are not synonymous in the least. Interrogation is one of the most effective investigative tool our law enforcement have. Yes everybody has the right to remain silent, but many do not have the intelligence to do so. And as long as they haven't invoked their rights, an interrogator can ask questions, and get answers without the subject even saying anything. Body language gives all kinds of information. Further even those who have invoked their rights, will often still end up speaking with an interrogator, just with their lawyer present. Again, with a capable interrogator even with a lawyer present, they give up all kinds of information even if the lawyer doesn't let them say a thing.
Take it outside the criminal arena to the intelligence collection field, where Lawyers and the 5th amendment seldom have any say in the matter (the various Geneva and other conventions do) and again we are able to extract great deals of information. And Torture is not necessary or even desired.
I know hating the US and or it's intelligence community is the popular thing to do here on slashdot, but your hate here is miss-guided. They are seeking to make a very valuable and effective skill more effective, to help further stave off the temptation to look to the "enhanced techniques" that border on and even cross over into torture. We don't want to do that. We want to get the information quickly and humanly.
As to surveillance, yea right, how you going to surveil an individual through a foreign country with the resources we have. Most our agents, regardless of agency, are obviously American or at least western European. Surveillance is a practiced skill, that becomes immensely harder when nobody on your team can blend in with the local population. Don't believe the movies. I've yet to see a good demonstration of discreet surveillance in a movie.
I understand what you are saying but isn't that the job of the CIA? The problem I have with this is that these interrogation techniques may someday be turned against American citizens and used on American communities because some law maker decides to pass some dumbass law which criminalizes enough people. The USA is currently politically unstable, and many people don't agree with the current focus of the law enforcement.
FBI is law enforcement not military. If this interrogation were to only be used for protecting national security I wouldn't have such a problem with it. Bosnia was an issue of national security, and the people being interr
You really think with all the drones, spy satellites, wiretapped internet, hidden cameras and informants everywhere that they'd need to sit someone down in a room and interrogate them?
There are limitations to technology, and the cameras and wiretaps aren't everywhere yet.
When you're talking about crime why do you feel it's okay to interrogate any suspects? The suspect has a right to remain silent. There is no reason to interrogate anyone based on anything other than national security and I'm not convinced interrogation is the key to national security.
That's completely stupid. You interrogate people because even if they have a right to remain silent they still talk anyway! And very often people actually give you correct information that incriminates them.
Go watch this "Don't talk to the police" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related
And how does the government make people talk? That is the coercive interrogation I'm concerned about.
If people want to talk then you don't even need an interrogation. You can just do all of that covertly and not have an overt interrogation and avoid all the intimidation. If people don't want to talk and if national security is not on the line why should the FBI have the ability to try and force people to talk?
The only instance I can think of where it makes sense to force people to talk are when lives are at stake or when it's a national security type situation. Most of the people actually being arrested however seem to be stupid kids and drug dealers. If the FBI were putting it's resources into violent crimes and into national security then their request might be more justifiable. What I'm saying is why give broad powers to interrogate anyone for any crime when you can restrict those powers or try to?
Because the government can't see everything you thick twat.
The government can see more than we think.
They might not see everything but the sort of interrogations they have today for the same of excuses they claim to use them for seems to be over done. If you think interrogations are so valuable find a situation where we'd all agree interrogation is a good idea.