Slashdot Log In
Bavarian Police Seeking Skype Trojan Informant
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Sep 17, 2008 03:09 PM
from the heavy-hand dept.
from the heavy-hand dept.
Andreaskem writes "Bavarian police searched the home of the spokesman for the German Pirate Party (Piratenpartei Deutschland) looking for an informant who leaked information about a government Trojan used to eavesdrop on Skype conversations. (The link is a Google translation of the German original.) There is a high probability that the Trojan is used illegally. A criminal law specialist said, 'The Bavarian authorities worked on the Trojan without a legitimate basis and now try to silence critics.' The informant need not worry since 'every information that could be used to identify him' is protected against unauthorized access by strong encryption. The Trojan is supposedly capable of eavesdropping on Skype conversations and obtaining technical details of the Skype client being used. It is deployed by e-mail or in place by the police. A Pirate Party spokesman said, 'Some of our officials seem to want to install the Big Brother state without the knowledge of the public.'"
Related Stories
[+]
European Crackdown On Skype "Loophole" 230 comments
angry tapir writes "Suspicious phone conversations on Skype could be targeted for tapping as part of a pan-European crackdown on what law authorities believe is a massive technical loophole in current wiretapping laws, allowing criminals to communicate without fear of being overheard by the police. Eurojust, a European Union agency responsible for coordinating judicial investigations across different jurisdictions, has announced the opening of an investigation involving all 27 countries of the European Union."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Who would have thought that even a country like Germany could deteriorate into a police state?
I kid, I kid... I'm in the US...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was my first thought. When you outlaw knives, only outlaws will have knives. Then baseball bats. Then rolling pins. Then bare hands.
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:5, Funny)
`Then bare hands.
Hello, I am Leopold II and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Parent
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
The statement is true. Only people that choose to obey the law to begin with will obey a law banning knives. Those that choose to break the law won't mind breaking another one as they mug you with their illegal knife.
This leads to the unexpected result of handgun murders going up after handguns are banned. The "bad guys" know YOU won't have a gun, because they are illegal, and the police can't protect them...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
does that mean that we shouldn't have laws? The reason laws exist is not to stop law abiding citizens from doing things, it is to prosecute people who break laws.
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it means that, either.
The value of the public in their ability to protect themselves (especially when weighed against the ability of police to protect society, which is not the same thing as the ability to protect individuals, and the rate of crime) is not necessarily worth permitting people to utilize specific methods or tools.
For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat (which would probably solve all murders that weren't started out as suicide missions), the advantage, i.e., the protection of individual lives, would have to be strictly weighed against the risk to society in general.
Laws that prevent people from 'protecting themselves' serve the same purpose as any other law; they weigh the advantage to individuals against the advantage to society. That is the fallacy of the 'the police will not protect you' saw- the police were never intended to protect you. Their purpose is to protect society, and your life, in the grand scheme of society, is not very valuable. If you happen to lose it because the law prevented you from protecting yourself, that's really just tough luck.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For example, if we decided that it was very practical for people to protect their lives by equipping themselves with thermonuclear destruct devices activated by the lack of a heartbeat
Please, nothing so complex.
A thermonuclear device mounted on a motorcycle sidecar will do me *just* fine, thanks. Glass knives are optional.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In what way? A nuclear destruct device is an armament designed to deter the opponent from killing you on the risk that he himself will be killed.
A firearm, presumably, operates on much the same principles of deterrence.
A firearm is designed to kill your attacker, but generally not everyone on your block (I'm being generous in assuming a very small size here) and you along with it. If that was your intent, I would have just gone with the classic terrorist bomb-vest instead of the nuke. It's still ridiculous, as suicide is not one of the goals or even a likely outcome of self-defense using a gun. Mutually assured destruction does not apply.
Really? Are you saying that a smaller person cannot overcome a larger one? That a weaker person cannot overcome a stronger one?
Of course not. But those are the exceptional cases. The smaller person must be i
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
A gun is a tool. Guns are not evil. They can be used to do evil things, so they are outlawed because it makes it easier to do evil things.
Yeah yeah yeah... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people..." It's ignorance and intolerance that kills people, and access to guns perpetuates it. As long as it is in such abundance, guns should not be available to those that practice it.
You can say the same about knives. They make it easier to kill people as well.
Or pencils. Or cars. They're all just tools. That make it easier to kill people or do bad things.
Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone. Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play. You must not have seen Bowling For Columbine, where a kid that was shot by another kid confronted Walmart for selling the shooter the ammunition. Try telling their parents that enlightened comparison with pencils.
He is raising the point, that someone intending to break the law in an act such as a mugging, they wouldn't care if they were breaking another law at the same time.
But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns? You can't say that every one of them would have happened with knives instead. You can hold up 10 people at once with a gun. Try that with a knife. Access to guns enables crimes, which creates situations where the criminals would rather injure or kill victims or police officers rather than face a substantial jail sentence. Most gun-toting muggers would shoot a cop just to hide the fact that they had the gun.
If knives/guns are outlawed, you can't use a knife/gun to defend yourself from someone attempting to mug you using a knife/gun.
Get insurance, get secure plastic means of payment, give them your damned wallet, call the police. It's not worth the risk over such a relatively minor inconvenience. Credit cards can be canceled, ID can be gotten online in most cases, and cash is hardly worth carrying around anymore. Carrying weapons is no guarantee of protection, and it's a huge legal liability. If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet. Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement. That's their entire purpose, so you don't have to. Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.
Parent
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Buying a box of pencils doesn't require a willingness to do harm to someone.
I have guns and I don't want to harm people. I want to protect myself and my family from those who want to harm them.
Chances are those who buy AK47's have plans to use them for something other than a prop in a school play
No, chances are they are buying them for defense. There are extremely large quantities of "assault rifles" in the US and extremely few illegal uses of them. People buy "assault rifles" because they are easy and fun to shoot, easy to clean and maintain, easy to buy parts for, easy to customize, and are generally inexpensive.
But how many muggings with guns would not have happened without the guns?
How many people could defend themselves or their family from a mugging without a gun? There are over 5 million defensive uses of legally owned firearms in the US every year.
If you carry a licensed handgun, fire it at a mugger for example, wing him, then the bullet carries on through a wall into a baby's crib, you might as well have stood over the crib and opened fire. Intent follows the bullet.
Um, no. Not even close. Accidental killing and murder are not the same thing. And bullets missing intended targets, going through walls, and killing other people is EXTREMELY rare. Most handgun loads will not go through brick or cinderblock walls (using your example of an outside mugging, the bullet would have to first penetrate the outside wall) and there are plenty of loads specifically designed to not go through interior drywall for just this reason.
Shooting at anything in a residential area under any circumstances is only for trained law enforcement.
What about former military (like myself and millions of other Americans), former law enforcement, and other trained civilians? Most states that allow concealed handgun permits require training or prior military service before issuing, so no it is not just for law enforcement.
Buying insurance generates funds to research criminal activity and make communities safer.
And communities that own guns have lower crime. Those that ban gans have higher crime. Been to DC recently?
For more reading, try More Guns Less Crime. It was written by a Harvard economist who started off trying to show bad guns are and after quite thorough research using over 1,000 sources ended up buying a gun to defend his family. If you would like an argument backed by facts and not flimsy emotional appeals, read the book.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you must not have seen Bowling For Columbine. They didn't buy their bullets at Wal-Mart, it was K-Mart. That doesn't negate your point but rather shows your presumptions based on your "elevated" awareness (such as watching a Moore movie will give a sense of) are flawed.
If you insist on pointing out something as factual then, well, try to get the facts correct.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Society most certainly 'exists', it may be a mirror of the collective will of the people who create it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Imagine 'society' being a giant voting bloc comprised of everybody. If you were to take a vote of 5000 people, how many of them would vote to kill one of their number rather than half? Almost all of them. If that means t
Choices vs. objects (Score:4, Interesting)
Murder can usefully be outlawed, because it is a choice that an intelligent person makes. (In fact, if the killer is mentally deficient and incapable of making that choice, it is treated different legally.) A gun, knife, automobile, HCl etc, morphine, are objects of varying degrees of danger and usefulness.
Particular objects are reasonably controlled when the danger they present is not obvious to an ordinary person. Someone not familiar with chemistry may be tragically surprised by the destructiveness of a bottle of HCl (although warning labels help). Hence it makes sense to make it hard to get unless you know what you are doing.
A knife is an obvious danger. Even if you don't speak the language. Even if you just came from deepest darkest Africa and have never seen technology before. A gun is an obvious danger to someone exposed to any technology of the last 400 years. (Although apparently too many idiots don't think about the danger of it going off accidentally.)
So objects likely to result in accidental death are controlled, and hopefully still available with a license that demonstrates basic competence. (And where you draw the line depends on how stupid you think the average citizen is.) And deliberating causing death via any means is illegal - although most places allow for circumstances like duels, self-defense, etc.
Controlling an object/substance to prevent accidental death does *not* protect anyone from intentional death via that object/substance. Gun control may prevent some accidental home shootings, but it does not stop criminals from getting guns. Heck, if nothing else go back to basics and make a primitive weapon from steel rod and homemade gunpowder like they did in the 18th century. What next? Outlaw lathes? Outlaw metal cutting tools that could be attached to a homemade lathe? Outlaw fire since it could be used to forge and temper metal cutting tools?
Parent
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
I would not be surprised if the NSA has something similar at work here in the US.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the US government is already tapping your landlines, I would not be very surprised either.
Re:Bavarian police invading privacy!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
When the Germans do it, it's scary (to a lot of people). When the US does it, is it not also scary?
Parent
Re: Bad german history (Score:5, Insightful)
Comments from a German:
German history has in the past worked as a deterrent against giving the police and secret services too much power. But after 9/11 and with the generation that has lived under the Nazi regime gradually dying off, those lessons seem in danger of being forgotten.
The USA, however, have the "disadvantage" that they never had a dictatorship that was universally regarded as completely evil in hindsight. As a consequence, you guys over there have never learned these things the hard way and are (on average) way too trusting towards your government.
[Flamebait]
With stuff like arbitrarily detaining people ("illegal combatants" who are denied a fair trial) and torture of prisoners I think you are closer to a Fourth Reich than Germany.
Parent
Re: Bad german history (Score:5, Interesting)
The so called "disadvantage" isn't a real disadvantage. Why? People forget, generations go past. Old people die, young people are born. World War II will be a lesson as long as people who have lived during that era can tell something about it. That may be possible now but in about 30 years almost all people who went through that period will have died. Then, nobody can tell us about the horrors of WWII, the brutalities, the bombing raids, the razzias.
World War II will become like World War I, a forgotten war. As a joke I always use "Wilhelm II" as my avatar on every forum I am a member of. Nobody knows who "the guy with the weird moustache" is. Nobody is offended because it happened before any of us lived. The shockeffect is gone. 40 million people DIED in that war and I bet not even 1% can tell you who fought who.
It's a tragedy.
And the tragedy will return, but as a farce.
Nobody is safe from failings, people thinking that they are immune to making mistakes are wrong. You WILL support the wrong guy and he will take away your freedoms. You WILL cheer for the soldiers sent into a useless and bloody war. And the lessons will be learned by you and forgotten by your children.
I feel sorry for humanity.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people at the time probably weren't too clear on who was fighting who. That war was a confused mess. As I understand it, a Bosnian shot an Austrian, so Austria declared war on Serbia, so Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes. I fully realize that Bavaria is just a German state - It's actually very nice and the only part of Germany that I've been able to visit. But it's funnier to pick on the whole country even if it's inaccurate. (Although if this had gone on for some time, yielded results, and was not noticed, do you really think that it would have been contained to Bavaria?)
Isn't there a nit somewhere that needs picking?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to see them install a trojan on my UltraSPARC.
Could be worse... (Score:5, Funny)
rj
How would YOU install a police state . . .? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." - who said that again?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure, I guess you could write a nsis script for it.
Re:How would YOU install a police state . . .? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every government, ultimately, will be inclined to install a police state. It is the most efficient way for people who's main concern is enforcing the law to operate. Which would be fine if we could know that the laws were just and the people enforcing those laws were also just. But it is in human nature to disagree on such subjective terms as "just" even if we ignore that it is also human nature to abuse and become corrupted by power.
As it is a natural inclination to install a police state, the steps to do so will take many forms. Some quiet. Some with great pomp and circumstance. Some will be corrupt and self-serving. Some will be introduced with entirely good intention.
Eternal vigilance is required to maintain a check on this behavior. It is easy to point out the corrupt. It is harder to realize that the actions based on good intention leads to corruption and abuse. But ultimately, both must be identified and stopped.
It is a part of the process... an ongoing process that is likely to continue as long as we exist.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I very much agree with you, but I notice that less people care every day - for reasons we all could enumerate. It's like saying "will science provide solutions for the problems the future poses? Yes, of course!" but also asking "Will the powers that be listen to science? Or even only to reason?".
So, I guess we're screwed, all of us.
We're going to have rough times. Its part of the ebb and flow of it all; we're wired for, and a rational system requires, conflict. But I'm not convinced we're doomed (nor are we guaranteed to survive).
If you look through history, there is always a swing of growth and decay; enlightenment and ignorance. One is a part of the other. We can only hope that the general cycle is always positive and we've done all we can to limit the damage caused by negative swings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever notice that laws against something in tech (encryption, network use, limit downloads, etc.); defense (ban guns knives Marshall Arts knowledge); or most anything else, are proposed and passed by clueless politicians without a shred of morality or knowledge of the subject. And that laws in favor of something (RIAA favorable laws, copyrot, big money bail outs etc) are passed by clueless politicians without a shred of morality or knowledge of the subject.
not that I woudl expect otherwise mind...
Bavarian Police Seeking Skype Trojan Informant (Score:5, Funny)
Likes outdoor activities, pets, and long moonlit walks on the beach. Mild uniform fetish. Possible LTR. Call me soon - let's drink beer and eat Souvlakia on Walpurgisnacht!
Vacation in scenic Souvlakia... (Score:3, Funny)
... where the wild souvlaki [wikipedia.org] herds roam! :)
Cheers,
Disconcerting convergence of technologies... (Score:5, Insightful)
The trends I've been noticing lately are very disconcerting.
Think about what you get when the following technologies converge:
-- IP Traceback
-- VOIP Interception
-- Keylogging
-- Deep Packet Analysis
-- Automatic Vehicle License Plate Identification
-- Public/Metro Transit Card Tracking
Everyone now has the potential to become their own "Poor Man's NSA." Even local governments, or relatively poor and/or developing countries.
Of course, if a private citizen used these tools to protect their *own* interests, they could be charged with all sorts of crimes, like illegal wiretapping, computer intrusion and abuse, etc...
Re:Disconcerting convergence of technologies... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can remember a debate I had a while back about the potential of some cheap wifi tech hooked up to a small webcam and worn on your person when going to protests or other events where you expect there to be a high chance of the police breaking the law. So that it could stream everything you see directly to a secure online store.
This would have great potential for making sure police who abuse their power get in trouble or are at least publicly shown to be abusing their power.
My friends rebuttal was that they'd simply introduce a law banning private citizens from using such devices at protests and call it a measure against pedophiles (to stop them filming the little kids walking around in the streets! You never know what they'd be thinking about if they had video of your children walking on a public street!!!).
As long as people will accept anything in the name of fighting terrorists or paedophiles then civil liberties are fucked.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually legality of it would very from place to place. In the US it is totally legal to take pictures in public spaces but in some states it is illegal to record audio. Those laws are privacy laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All of this has already come to pass.
It was possible to watch protesters live at the DNC and RNC at justin.tv.
The police in Minnesota arrested dozens of journalists during the RNC, many with legitamite press credentials (not that you need them to be protected by the 1st amendment). Of course they weren't arrested for engaging in a protected right, but the police arrested them all on bogus charges anyway.
I'm sure they'll do an excellent investigation... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is genuinely fucked up that, when evidence of a most-likely-illegal government surveillance program comes to light, they are hunting for the person who brought the problem to light, rather than the people who are the problem.
FFS, if evidence of an illegal program is leaked, your problem isn't leakers, it is lawbreakers.
Should be the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
It happens in the UK too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting Anonymously to protect my job,
I have been working for a few months on software designed to extract skype calls from streams of captured packets. The software is highly distributed, and while I can't know the exact use, I'm guessing it will be installed near every network interconnect point. Interestingly, it has nowehere near the performance required to record every skype call on the internet, so it will probably only be used for certain targets.
The good news is that the project is failing badly due to funding issues and poor management, and probably won't be deployed for years yet.
Note that this IS with the help of skype engineers - we haven't reverse engineered the encryption.
Re:It happens in the UK too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you !
Sincerely, a concerned citizen
Parent
But? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it run under Linux?
I am wondering it really could be another reason to run Linux.
I am sure that the NSA has forensics tools for Linux but I bet the local police sure don't.
Stasi 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
For the first time in my life, I will attempt to post something informative on Slashdot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_2.0 [wikipedia.org]
The, err, um, joke, is that the Stasi were the former East German secret police (1.0).
The major failure of the Stasi (1.0), was that they were collecting too much data, that they could ever dream of analyzing.
Has 2.0 deeper pockets?
Re:Stasi 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Has 2.0 deeper pockets?
No, but the cost of sifting through that information is almost negligible nowadays, with our computers and even voice analysis software. Far more efficient than filing cabinets and typewriters.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
well, I guess we can't really blame everything on them.
Nah, we have George Bush for THAT.
Exactly why you need tit-for-tat laws. (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to defending itself, a Government can be truly frightful. They can take away your property (rezoning), your wife(abuse charges), your kids(child abuse charges) and almost anything they can think of. You can do nothing to protect yourself except in courts: Try defending yourself with a handgun when a SWAT team raid (illegally), and you would be lucky to escape alive, let alone unharmed.
Try protesting your innocence in a police station when you are roughly handcuffed and tossed into a cell containing hardened criminals.
And when finally courts rule against the government, the government goes scot-free by throwing your tax money back at you in compensation and escaping any other liability.
If you owe taxes to IRS, they can seize your home, imprison you and incarcerate you forever.
But if the government owes back taxes to you or any other money, you cannot walk in seize their property: its a sure way to get shot.
Which is why laws must be tit-for-tat.
All laws must be reciprocal. If the law allows the State to raid your home with just a no-show warrant, you should be able to do the same against them with same warrant and walk in with a few gun-slingers.
If the law allows state to seize your property for taxes with just a notice, you should be able to walk in and seize their property when they refuse to pay you.
Simple.
Roman laws were like that.
Its a pity it was not followed.
Re:Actung! (Score:5, Funny)
Look! I 'drew' ASCII Hitler! It's OK, though, the Bavarian Gendarmerie already pre-Godwinned the topic!
(\:7=[
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Zero to Godwin in 3 posts, a new record !
This part was particularly compelling: In January 2008, the Pirate Party unbestätigtes letter from the Bavarian Justice Ministry zugespielt.
Love that translation program.
Re: (Score:2)
Look! I 'drew' ASCII Hitler!
Does that make your post illegal in Germany?
Re:Flaimebait (Score:2)
Speaking of Nazi's, that should be spelled
"Achtung! Sieg Heil!"
Re:Contradiction in terms (Score:4, Interesting)
In this they are incorrect. The beauty of the Orwellification of the Western world right now is that it is with the full co-operation of the general public.
Step 1. Create imaginary bogeymen -- "terrorists", "pedophiles"
Step 2. Create hysteria that gives the false impression that said bogeymen are common, rather than, in reality, very rare.
Step 3. Create economic crisis to fan the flames of hatred and jealousy.
And viola, the general public will help you light the gas ovens.
We have learned nothing whatsoever from history. Nothing. Not. One. Thing.
Parent
Assumption ... the screwup of mother nature .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Assumption is the biggest $*@#up of mother nature ... .. On the other hand .. Diversion always worked best before with us
humans; like it does now too for the general public... It's just too easy!