FBI Wants to Tap The Net

Majik was among the stream sof people submitting this story about the FBI wanting to tap the net. Makes carnivore look like a baby monitor since this tracks all packets, and would be placed at key locations on the net.

Re:Lamers

[isa-kuruption]

No, it wouldnt degrade the performance. There is something in Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) called a passive sensor. All network traffic would be forwarded to the passive sensor. This would be an easy task for any router. The hard part is the passive sensor would have to be able to look through as much data as the router/switch could put out (like 20gbit/sec?)

Wiretapping

[LazyDawg]

Even if they pick up every single packet sent over the Internet, they would have a very hard time picking up useful content.

There are roughly a billion computers on the Internet, and each one sends out a heavy stream of packets, which contain any number of encryption and steganographic schemes.

To actually stop would-be terrorists from using the internet to transmit thought crime or seditious materials, they would need a very very big computer that filters out various pieces of traffic. No matter how hard you try, this will increase network latency, and piss off the average user.

If a massive, unprovoked attack on our rights to privacy, freedom of expression and thought doesn't stir the people to action, imagine Joe Sixpack when he can't view streaming porn as quickly. He'll be calling his congressman immediately.

we do something simular

[ReidMaynard]

here at our org already ... let me tell you, you will need A LOT OF STORAGE SPACE to save this stuff off

web traffic alone we see about 500G a day, just from 250k workstations surfing and such.

I think we're looking at 50-500TB per day, but prolly more. time to buy some hard drive stocks.

Re:Someone please refresh my memory...

[sulli]

Yes, but don't forget that IPSec can be used with IPv4 which we all use now. IPSec is normally used for virtual private networks, but there's no particular reason you couldn't extend it to other services. It's not so useful for any-to-any communication (it assumes PKI availability) but perhaps this will change as users get more paranoid.

Re:always assumed this is being done

[Tackhead]

> I always though the NSA was doing this already. So why worry?

The difference is that NSA is an intelligence organization, not a law enforcement organization.

That is, NSA doesn't care about who you slept with last night, your tastes in g0at-pr0n, whether you may or may not have indulged in recreational pharmaceuticals in your misspent youth, how many MP3z and warez you download, or whether you traffic in copy control circumvention devices. Even if you assume (incorrectly) that they want to spy on US citizens, keeping track of jaywalkers is not their mandate, and they're busy enough with the stuff that is their mandate.

It is, however, entirely within the FBI's mandate, as enforcers of the law, to "sweat the small stuff". Today, they hunt terrorists with guns, when they're gone, they'll scour the database to find the terrorists with drugs, and next year, they'll start earning their keep by nailing the copyright terrorists.

Spooks have better things to do with their time. Cops don't.

Here is the official stance

[bstrahm]

of the Internet Architecture Board on enabling wiretapping
RFC2804 [ietf.org]

So now we have the group that defines internet standards saying that requirements to implement wiretapping should not be included in protocol design discussions. That does not mean that the FBI couldn't put a BIG HONKING device in a couple of places on the internet and globally adjust all routing tables so that packets went to it... but then there is something about too much information hidding the data

Re:You have a point

[_ph1ux_]

that is true that the data will be too much for them to analyse - but what it does do is subvert the requirement for a warrant for any type of info retreival.

and not to mention that it prolly has plenty of fun extras piggy backed onto it. as with anything we should always read between the lines - and not think that they would put the true implications of their actions up for everyone to see based on face value. there is sure to be some serious side powers granted via legislation of this sort.

Re:Go ahead.

[rockwood]

There are several sites for "Jam Echelon Day" which was October 21. An email generator that will send email to Echelon (on your behalf) can be found at http://uid0.sk/echelon/mail_en.php [uid0.sk] And a very detailed site can also be found over at Linux Security at http://echelon.linuxsecurity.com/ [linuxsecurity.com]