Carnivore Update 204
A reader writes: "Yahoo has a news item about the continued use of DCS-1000 AKA Carnivore. Looks like it's being used more than ever, and some privacy groups are still fighting in court for more disclosure about its use."
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
How does that work, exactly? Does Earthlink force you to use military-grade encryption prior to subscribing?
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. Earthlink will assess if your computer can do 100Mhz push-ups.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, we just have an FBI agent sitting at a desk looking for kiddie pr0n 10 hours a day. It turns out the coffee and donuts cost less than a bunch of hard drives changed weekly. Who would have guessed?!
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It's so reassuring (Score:1)
Well, at least privacy from any outside organisation, even a law-enforcement office. What they do internally concerning privacy of their subscribers must be their own private business.
Re:It's so reassuring (Score:2)
Given the choice between entrusting my data to the FBI, or to employees who may be $cientologists, I'll take the FBI any day.
(The only distressing part about this article is that it implies the FBI trusts the clams. If I were the FBI, I sure as hell wouldn't.)
This may mean nothing but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Therefore I have people send me files, etc to my e-mail address often.
I'm using AT&T Broadband internet (http://www.attbi.com), Some one sends me a
Now I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but... since when do we get e-mails sent second, first?
Why are e-mails with attachments taking so much longer to get to me, then e-mails without attachments? Anyone else notice this?
Re:This may mean nothing but... (Score:1)
Re:This may mean nothing but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it could be the government snooping in on you and trying to steal all your code so they can use it to kill us all....
-OR-
It could simply be their batch filing is messed up on their servers. MSN/Hotmail have always had problems with this and I wouldn't be suprised to see AT&T a little messed up. There's a million reasons why this could happen.. another one that comes to mind is what if one of their severs went down.. the one which was supposed to send your mail? Then when it comes back up it sends it. i dunno.. pick your reason.
Re:This may mean nothing but... (Score:1)
You're right...it means nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
The order that they are sent out of the queue in is determined by settings set by the administrator. Some SMTP servers are actually setup so that small-sized messages get priority over bigger messages. Since most e-mails are small, your larger messages with attachments may sit in the queue longer, waiting for a bunch of smaller messages to be sent.
This queueing depends on the mostly on the *senders* mail server. The receivers mail server will generally put messages from the receive queue into the users mailboxes in the order they came in, but not always.
Have your mail client display all headers...these show where the mail was along its route and typically have date/time stamps on them. This will help you determine where the hold up is (on the sender's mail server, on your mail server, etc.) Look for the length of time between timestamps. If one is unusually longer than the rest, that's where the hold up is. I'm not saying it's not Carnivore, but what you describe is a fairly common occurrence.
Re:This may mean nothing but... (Score:1)
Now I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but... since when do we get e-mails sent second, first?
Why are e-mails with attachments taking so much longer to get to me, then e-mails without attachments? Anyone else notice this?
Dude, do you not remember that AT&T consolidated its mediaone.net and attbroadband.com email systems under attbi.com only two weeks ago? I'm surprised so many people are getting their email at all.
Re:This may mean nothing but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the early days of semi-widespread Net use, with uucp providing mail services, delivery times of 1-2 days were common. Today we have gotten used to e-mail delivery around the globe in 30 seconds or less, but there is nothing in the definition of e-mail service that says this has to be the case.
sPh
September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Carnivore is not here to 'keep us safe'. It's here to keep us quiet. Thank you John Asscroft, for making sure no one speaks out without repercussions.
BTW: The terrorists have already won...the election.
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:2, Insightful)
Our country is in a sad state when our elected officials and their apointees take advantadge of a terrible tragedy to expand their power and take away the freedoms that made this country great.
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:1)
Thank you John Asscroft, for making sure no one speaks out without repercussions.
. . .because Gods forbid citizens should be held responsible for abusing their free-speech rights.
If you write anything that leaves your computer for something on the Internet, presume someone else will read it, and respond with encryption or other countermeasures as you see fit. But don't complain that your privacy is invaded--you chose to transmit information that's going to bounce in-between at least three different computers; and in any case, you have the responsibility to account for the words you choose to express.
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is also an amazingly large leap from "taking responsibility for the words you write" to "it's okay for the government to inspect everything I write for possible subversive content".
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:2)
For what it's worth, you actually DO have a right to privacy in your own home, even with the blinds open. Check up on peeping tom laws sometime.
You know, I was going to make more reasoned arguments, but I just re-read your post and I'm just too pissed off by the way people always dismiss these sort of concerns as "whining". Just because YOU are comfortable with people reading all your communications and watching in your windows, doesn't mean that everyone should be, nor that it should be considered a normal thing. Just because you are a sheep doesn't mean that I need to be.
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. The relevant case law is contained mainly in the landmark case Katz vs. United States. In it, the Nine Old Farts of the Potomac said that trespass is not a relevant issue in Fourth Amendment law. Rather, the relevant question is whether or not a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a certain place or item. (Remember the words in quotes: They're at the very heart of all search and seizure law in the US)
So, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own living room? That depends. Can the inside of your house be seen from the outside?
Remember, a cop can legally act on anything he sees, so long as he is in a place in which he is legally able to be when he sees it. And he can use binoculars, if he can demonstrate to the court that he would have been able to see what he saw from a closer position which he has a legal right to be in, and used the binoculars only to avoid detection.
Where it gets interesting is when you deal with new surveillance technology. "Extraordinary technical means" typically are closer to being a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant or other justification. There was a case a year or so ago in which an indoor marijuana grow was located using a thermal imager, and the images (and the search that followed) were suppressed, since the use of TI technology was a "search" within the meaning of the amendment.
In the specific case here...legally, any person with legal custody of a record is allowed to hand it over to police. If Earthlink violates their own privacy policy and decides to make nice with the FBI, you probably (IANAL) have a civil claim against them. However, whatever they gave the Feebs will probably be admissible in criminal court.
Also, Carnivore, as I understand it, can be used two ways. Either it can give the full content of email, or it can merely report the headers. The latter setting is basically analogous to a "mail cover," in which the information on the outside of a First-Class envelope is recorded. As of yet, there is no Federal case law on whether a mail cover constitutes a search requiring legal justification. My own guess is that the USSC will rule that it isn't, but it'll be a close decision. An email cover would be a lot like a pen register, which the USSC also doesn't consider to be a search requiring warrant.
Also, bear one other thing in mind: In mail that enters the United States from abroad, there is no legal bar to it being opened and inspected. That's for customs purposes, mostly, and I don't know if that reasoning will be extended to email or not. This is a new enough area of case law that there's still a lot of fumbling. Never mind our dual-sovereignty system here in the US, which makes things more complicated. Pen registers ARE considered to be searches by Colorado state courts, and I'm guessing that they'll do the same with mail covers. Likewise, the Federal courts have said that anybody with legal access to records can turn them over to police and have them be admissible, but the Colorado courts have said otherwise, but were a little vague about it.
So, if any of our overseas brethren are not yet thoroughly confused, follow up to this and I'll give a discourse on Colorado forfeiture law ;-)
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:2)
And yes, I'm very familiar with the "reasonable expectaion of privacy" idea, I'm just in disagreement about what that really means. There is precedent that if people EXPECT it to be private, then it legally is, even if it's technically trivial to get that information - phone taps, for example. In the case of email, yes, it's sent in the clear, but I'd say it has rather more expectation of privacy than a postcard (the most common comparison) - it never crosses human hands, and there is no reason whatsoever for anything to read and log the content of the message, other than for privacy violation. Aside from that, most people FEEL that email is private, whether it is or not.
Re:September 11th used to justify everything. (Score:1)
remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowadays, creating software (napster, IE, Kazaa, Blizzard games...), let alone using it, is an issue that often ends up in the courts...
Technology sure is'nt the fun it used to be.
my packets (Score:2)
Mostly Harmless (Score:3, Funny)
It was probably the NSA, until they put you into the category of "Mostly Harmless"
Which is what I think they did with most the geek community.
Classify it as "Mostly Harmless"
Re:Mostly Harmless (Score:2)
LOL! So just in case, I wouldn't want to disappoint them:
shpx lbh tbirazrag ovgpurf!
Kintanon
Re:Mostly Harmless (Score:2)
Given the tendency to argue with each other, indulge in flame wars, etc. and in general be over individualistic, this tends to limit the scalability of genius and talent.
It's the old adage of in a war between a well organised army of morons vs a few genius types, bet on the army of morons.
Stupidity is much more scalable than genius. Guess which wins in the long run?
Actually . . . (Score:2)
Re:my packets (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech isn't violated whenever somebody chooses to listen. It also isn't violated whenever someone chooses to act on what you have said.
Free Speech is only violated if you are forced not to speak.
Re:my packets (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:my packets (Score:1)
Re:my packets (Score:5, Informative)
OTOH, a large percentage of the East Coast's Internet infrastructure was located in and around WTC, and much was destroyed and/or shut down. Different routes were certainly used while this stuff was under repair.
sPh
Re:my packets (Score:2)
Of course, now they know that I know. uh oh.
Re:my packets (Score:2)
That was when they finally got their filter software installed at your ISP, and they no longer needed to route the traffic through their overloaded central site.
Ya gotta realize that they have a tremendous logistical problem. You can't install software in every router overnight. If you have millions of sites on your watch list, you first need to hit the routing tables to redirect those sites' traffic to one of your (big and fast) sites. Then you can take the time to put in the local filters.
Also, the NSA and FBI don't have millions of people on staff to do this. They've been paying lots of overtime in the past six months, and they're still way behind in the work.
Why don't you send them a resume?
Re:my packets (Score:3, Funny)
>
> Why don't you send them a resume?
"The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one."
- Seen in a .sig on USENET ;-)
Sir, put down the crack pipe and step away slowly. (Score:2)
Stop being so damned paranoid.
- A.P.
Re:my packets (Score:2)
A lot of fiber went dark on 9/11 when the towers fell. There's a lot of bandwidth in VA.
The internet doesn't just interpret censorship as damage and route around it -- it also interprets damage as damage and routes around it :-)
Was that Carnivore? If it was, doesn't that violate Free Speech?
Nope. It's easy enough to sniff for packets without betraying your presence. Anyone with the hardware and capability of sniffing on a such a large scale is going to be smart enough not to have the sniffing detectable.
(And whether sniffed or not, your packets made it to their ultimate destination, regardless of whose routers they went through. I fail to see how your right to speak was infringed.)
Oh yeah? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother to rely on their niceness when you can easily be rather sure nobody reads your important mails?
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:1)
That really is the only way (Score:3, Insightful)
I still haven't gotten my friends to use GPG for everything, but I figured I could solve half of the problem, by having my email hosted overseas [swissmail.org] and then use an SSL connection to retrieve it (and also SMTP over SSL for outbound mail). That way, if someone's just snooping my side, then it's still hard to read mail that isn't GPGed. Right?
Nope. As far as I can tell, the client [good-day.net] I have been playing with, doesn't show me certs or let me store the server's cert somewhere. Therefore, all my SSL connections could be going through a Man In The Middle and I would never know. SSL is practically useless.
When it comes to email, encryption really does have to be done at the application level, and PGP/GPG is The Way.
PGP as an anti-spam mechanism? (Score:2)
The drawback is that requiring encrypted email also blocks all mailing lists, and your clueless aunt in Nebraska who only uses AOL.
Addresses are not encrypted (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't send messages to any known terrorists, but have you ever looked at a
Carnivore (Score:4, Informative)
I guess everyone is under investigation for possible crimes then, huh? :P
Re:Carnivore (Score:5, Informative)
And if you think it's easy to just hop in and get a warrant, I suggest you go read 'Black Mass' - it will shed some light on your misconceptions.
Don't trust 'em (Score:4, Funny)
"Carnivore is not deployed on our network," Shaw said. "We certainly do comply with law enforcement, but we do so in a way that does not compromise our users' privacy."
I have to wonder if "cooperating" with law enforcement means not only allowing access to the FBI and Carnivore but also making the public statement "Carnivore is not deployed on our network".
I wouldn't make any assumptions of privacy no matter what ISP you use.
Re:Don't trust 'em (Score:2)
check your facts please.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think there is a lot less concern from the majority of people that they're going to be monitored," Russell told NewsFactor."
OK, now prove it. No one likes their communications being monitored. Has anyone actually gone out and ASKED people if they mind being monitored? Or is this more of the well, they don't seem to mind because they aren't bitching about it type of logic?
This cop-out crap about 9-11 changing the way everyone thinks of privacy is beginning to get extremely old. 9-11 was a national tragedy. Don't use it to slam dunk crap legislation down our throats...once you have gathered the wraith of enough people, then maybe you will listen. Most Americans are UN-EDUCATED on these matters. They also probably think that in order to be caught up in this, you need to be some militia-type with a bunch of ammo and automatic weapons to be investigated. Sad, really....
Re:check your facts please.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironic that to argue against the author's generalization, you make another one in return.
He is likely basing his conclusion on the national resolve following 9/11 to combat terrorism. One byproduct of that resolve as reported in the media is a perceived willingness to give up some privacy in exchange for increased security.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Go ahead. Read my email. You'll be bored and I'm no worst for wear. I use encryption for anything to do with banking which is the only thing I put on the net that's sensitive. The government isn't out to get me and unless you're either a terrorist or paranoid, they're not out to get you either.
Encrypt what's sensitive to you. You can bet the terrorists are too.
Re:check your facts please.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Important correction: unless they think you or I might be a terrorist ... or unless it's in their benefit to portray you or me as one. I don't see it as paranoid to expect that people in the government may well do what some of their predecessors have done in the past.
Ashcroft and other members of the administration have pretty much said that anyone that opposes their supposedly anti-terrorist policies is actively aiding terrorists, which means that if I do that loudly enough, I'm fair game.
They don't have to be out to get me (Score:2)
Just imagine if you or someone you know were running for office at some point in the future.
Re:check your facts please.... (Score:2)
oh, and btw, alcohol is illegal as of tomorrow, punishment for possession of a case of beer is life in prison. Do you really want to send that message about going out for beers with your friends unencrypted?
Re:check your facts please.... (Score:2)
First off, I have no illusions of grandeur that would lead me to believe that the government is that interested in me or my misdemeanor crimes. I refuse to even entertain the thought that possesion of beer would result in life in prison. Even during prohibition, personal use was ignored. Distribution was the only thing that was prosecuted.
Lets use a more appropriate example. Would I transmit a message to my friends that I was going to snort up some coke? I'd have the good sense to phrase it differently but sure I'd send it. Why? The government doesn't have time or the means to prosecute type of crime to the extent that you envision.
Will they prosecute when it smacks them in the face? Sure. Will they monitor everyone's email to do it. No chance.
Re:check your facts please.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought that in countless studies when the bill of rights was presented to people as a set of proposed laws at least a plurality if not a majority of those asked were opposed to them.
Look at other trends in personal privacy, like urine testing. It has almost no bearing on how well you're actually doing your job, and there's no testing for alcohol -- the most widely abused drug. But if you asked most people if they were in favor of it they'd say they are in favor of it. Its now widespread and considered "normal" to piss in a cup before you can get hired and often *after* on a periodic basis. If you're not using drugs, you don't have anything to worry about, right? And the only people opposed to it are people who do use drugs, right?
It does not and will not surprise me that most people are in favor of fairly intrusive security measures as long as they perceive that there is a threat and that the security measures are a direct impact on "someone else". They only try to escape them when they become a burden on them. Most people have logically concluded that the extensive airport security requirements are a ridiculous burden for frequent business travelers (aka First Class passengers).
Re:check your facts please.... (Score:1)
Carnivore is doomed.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Carnivore is doomed.... (Score:2, Funny)
Here's a (potentially dumb-ass) thought: If you did that, could you sue the FBI for breaking your encryption, under the DMCA?
Watching the secret-paranoid-government and the corporate-money-government going at each other sounds like fun ^_^
Maran
Re:Carnivore is doomed.... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no, you can't. Law enforcement is specificially exempted from the DMCA.
Re:Carnivore is doomed.... (Score:4, Funny)
If CBDTPA has a similar exemption, that sounds like the beginning of a great recruitment campaign for the FBI!
"Were you good with computers? Remember how much fun it was to have a real computer on your desk? Want to use a computer again? The FBI is recruiting people who were good with computers. The pay ain't great, but the fringe benefits are great. Imagine having a real computer on your desk again. No other organization can offer that! Send your resume today!"
Re:Carnivore is doomed.... (Score:2)
In that case, perhaps a sympathetic judge or sheriff could deputise some prominent developers and users. I recall that some "cannabis club" workers in Oakland, CA were deputised as a formality so that they would be protected from legal harrassment in their marijuana dispensing duties.
Re:Carnivore is doomed.... (Score:2)
I know this was meant as a joke, but it would most likely defeat Carnivore. Cornivore just does a basic keyword search and logs E-mails with a match. If you ROT13 you'll never get a keyword match, your mail won't be logged, and it will never be inspected.
-
snail mail (Score:1)
Re:snail mail (Score:1)
Heh. It's a crime for us to open someone else's mail. When I was in the army I worked with some very sensitive information and it became quite obvious that our mail was being opened. Who's gonna prosecute the feds when they open your mail? The ones doing the opening are also in charge of prosecuting the crime of opening mail...
quo custodiet ipsos custodies
Keywords (Score:5, Funny)
FBI Headquarters, Director's Office, Present:
DATA ANALYST: Good Afternoon, Sir. Here is the latest report from Carnivore.
FBI DIRECTOR: Who the fuck is this Bernard Shifman [petemoss.com]?
DATA ANALYST: He's a moron spammer, sir. We're trying to get his e-mails excluded as we speak.
Re:Keywords (Score:1)
Does it really matter? (Score:1)
Need to know? I seriously doubt 99.99% of the population is doing anything of importance towards national security over the open Internet. If they are, you would most likely be working with the agencies that are doing the snooping in the first place.
BFD. Let 'em snoop.
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
As Ben Franklin said ->"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Perhaps this will help you understand why it is important to stop this now.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing -- when you let the small evils pass, larger ones follow." Edmund Burke.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Nietzsche
Or try this on for size
"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."
by Rev. Martin Niemoeller, 1945
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:1)
How is what Carnivore is doing any different than the in-depth searches they are performing at airports, government facilities, staduims, etc? Nobody seems to be complaing about that. Sure it might hold them up a few extra minutes or even hours, but most of the folks understand the need.
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe all you do is check hockey scores, but some of us do real work on the Internet. Think about this, for example: What if I wanted John Ashcroft's job, and I was using email on the Internet to plan my campaign strategy. Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft not to take advantage of his position to protect his own interests, but what about the rest of the people in his organization? Do you want to bet your democracy on it? As a rule, in the US, we don't grant this level of inherent trust to our elected officials; we've found it unnecessary because we've created a government based on a set of checks and balances. A lot of people made a lot of sacrifices to bring you the democracy your enjoy today. You disrespect their memory to abandon what they've built just to make your own ass a bit safer for a while.
Carnivore allows one branch to "snoop" on the other two (and every citizen as well). Carnivore is root access to the email system.
Maybe we can trust John Ashcroft, but ask yourself this: Why is this administration demanding the ability to look at the inner workings of all other organizations (Carnivore), and simultaneously blocking requests by other organixations to find out about the administrations inner workings (energy policy scandal)?
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:1)
Not that it matters, but I do real work on the Internet as well. Anyway...
I do agree that Carnivore should not be used against the other two branches of our government. Can/Will this happen? Everyone can speculate.
I do think that monitoring of activity of suspected terroristscriminals/whatever is needed, and if this includes the mere scanning of data hitting on keywords (or the like) of regualr schmucks...well...you know my thoughts on this.
I know it's hard to have one without the other, and I doubt anyone will truly be happy with any solution, but something has to be done.
Who knows what the hell that is?
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm gonna let you in on a little secret here, Law enforcement is not here to 'protect' you. Law enforcement is here to clean up the mess after someone sprays your brains all over your apartment. They are trying to safeguard their jobs and government officials. For the same reason they don't give a flying fuck about what you write in your e-mail, they don't give a flying fuck if some militant islamist strolls into your house and kills you. They'll investigate afterwards, but they're more likely to just bug your house to get the killing on tape, THEN arrest the guy to make sure they get a conviction. They aren't interested in protecting you, and the sooner you realize that the better off you'll be. Protect yourself, stop whining for other people to do it for you.
Kintanon
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter? (Score:1)
Either way, you can argue that you can use good PGP to secure your e-mail if you want to mask what you are sending.
In this case, she'll draw the blinds.
Hello! It's the same historically as a mail cover (Score:3, Informative)
now i know that carnivore is no doubt being used to dig into message body and such, but please be aware that there is a precedent for certain functions of this system
-shpoffo
Re:Hello! It's the same historically as a mail cov (Score:1)
-
typical email (Score:1)
How much you wanna bet that EarthLink is lying and they have Carnivore on their system and saw that their business went down after they announced it was on their system?
Liars, liars.
Ashcroft is worthy of the Kremlin. He needs to read some of Jefferson's writings about liberty and how it is more important than security. Jefferson, were he still alive, would say that it is BAD to go crazy over security at the expense of privacy after Sept. 11. The kind of death he saw in the name of liberty was way more than at Sept. 11. Americans are soft war fearing babies. We are not worthy of our Constitution.
Freedom is ALWAYS more important than security. Ashcroft resembles Stalin, not Washington.
Re:typical email (Score:1)
Godwin's Law (Score:3, Interesting)
That GPL stuff is just communism anyway. Yur just out to put 'leet programmers like me out of work.
Communism is invoked to make cheap talking points in exactly the same way Nazism is invoked; it's yet another cheap rhetorical club whose use should brand anyone using it as just another ignorant 11 year old talking out his hind end.
I don't care for Ashcroft either but the parent poster is right. The guy who compared Ashcroft to Stalin shot himself in the foot.
Communism corollary to Godwin's Law anyone?
The people who care.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing I don't understand is this - it seems the people who get angriest about Carnivore are people like me, who have absolutely nothing to hide. I am not involved in any sort of criminal activity, and my "secrets" wouldn't earn an R rating if they were made into a movie. Yet this story makes me furious.
The people I know who DO have things to hide, who actually deal with sensitive corporate stuff, who do drugs and have affairs, these people tend to be very blase about privacy issues.
Why?
Value of 'Privacy' or value of 'Secrecy'? (Score:1)
Re:The people who care.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one have always thought of my e-mail as being essentially public information. I guess the problem is that most people don't understand how insecure e-mail is.
I think the worst thing about Carnivore is that they seem to have some expectation that it will work.
Who meets the following criteria:
1. Has something to communicate that would be interesting to the feds.
2. Is stupid enough to talk about it in a plain text e-mail, especially when Carnivore is fairly well talked about.
I don't think anyone does, and I'm sure the feds realize this. I'm guessing that what Carnivore really does is track the sending of encrypted e-mails - and the better the encryption the more the attention.
An Utter Load Of Bullshit (Score:1)
we never had privacy (Score:2, Informative)
Im really starting to believe that those pigeons used on India are the best sollution for our privacy needs!!!
It's good to see everyone's getting back to normal (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm not so likely to jump back on the bandwagon because the situations that existed before 9/11 that brought about the events of 9/11 are for the most part unchanged.
- There's a good deal of moneyed hate for all that is Western culture. Don't think those in the EU get a pass. It's only a matter of irrational fortune that the London Stock Exchange or the Eiffel Tower didn't get nailed. What was the plan...50 airplanes all over the world? Something along those lines.
- Theocratic warfare is still quite prevalent in the middle east. Theocratic states don't play along national lines or rules. If God says it, screw your Geneva Convention, buddy.
- We haven't disproved the efficiency of non-state based warfare. In fact, all we've done is hope it goes away before something else happens. Of course, EVERYONE is worried about the unstated concern that the international organizations are really just fronts for foreign governments. It doesn't take a genius to figure out a half dozen methods for causing billions of dollars worth of damage in ANY major metropolitan area around the world with no possibility of being stopped.
- We don't know what was planned to go off, where it was planned to go off, and with whom it is to go off. If the terrorists had any forethought at all, they would've allowed for the possibility of a communications crackdown after the first strike. Carnivore is based on the hope that the terrorists weren't this prepared. Given that the people who carried out the hijackings were in the U.S. for years, this isn't something to count on. Then again, Richard Reid was so butt-loving stupid(he missed his first flight for crying out loud!) we may yet snap up the idiot in the enemy ranks.
To sum up: we don't know who the enemy exactly is, but we do know that the enemy does exist. To pretend the enemy doesn't exist is insanely moronic and, in the end, suicidal. Get over the concept that any inconvenience is a victory for the enemy, and at least allow for the possibility that the government may just be trying to save your pampered ass.Re:It's good to see everyone's getting back to nor (Score:1)
I do know the enemy is out their. I also know that just because someone offers me candy doesn't make them a friend. I don't want my "pampered ass" saved from the wolves by the sharks.
Re:It's good to see everyone's getting back to nor (Score:3, Insightful)
Ohhh. Of course, it all makes sense to me now, the government NEEDS to read my e-mail to save me from terrorists... Of course. And the fact that this system was in place BEFORE a handful of people with boxcutters (Sweet zombie jesus how do you take over a plane with a fucking boxcutter?!) hijacked and crashed 4 planes is meaningless. Maybe, JUST maybe, we should stop training our citizens to be mindless drones who follow the whims of anyone around them, hmmm? The reason those planes crashed into the WTC is that the people one the plane believed OUR Governments bullshit about the best way not to die in a hijacking. Just like hundreds of people are raped and killed each year because the cops teach them not to resist. I say fuck that! If you're in a hostage situation you should ASSUME you are going to die anyways! If someone is trying to rape you, you should ASSUME they are going to kill you afterwards. FIGHT BACK PEOPLE!!! Stand up for yourselves and your rights! You don't need the government to do it for you!
Kintanon
Re:It's good to see everyone's getting back to nor (Score:3, Insightful)
You raise good historical points, and, for that matter, conveniently ignore the nastier episodes in U.S. history concerning our dealings with others in favor of the more recent. I will be the first to not admit, but proclaim that international policy is almost always a choice of evils. What makes such policy even more morally ambiguous is that we know we are dealing with people every bit as vicious and authoritarian in order to suppress what we at that point consider the more immediate and dangerous evil. Of course, I would be a naive and colonial apologist if I didn't point out that this is nothing new. In fact, such choices have been present since the dawn of inter-civilization communication.
In our dealings with Panama, Libya, Iraq, Al Qaida and the like, every decision made between 1942 and 1992 was made with the Sovient Union in mind. Why? Well, they were the only true complete threat. While it is true that states with chemical weapons such as Iraq can kill thousands or possibly millions within the U.S. with coordinated strikes, and while its true that organizations such as Al Qaida could bring the world economy to its knees and possibly a recession with enough coordinated strikes, both threats absolutely vanish in the face of a true nuclear holocaust. Thus, we dealt with the less immediate evil.
The U.S. is not special with regards to its international policy. While we generally do pretty well with regards to human rights, there are atrocities with our names on them. This could be said about just about every country with an international agenda. In fact, the attitude of impunity is not special. Every country throughout history that has held such a strong position has held exactly that attitude, until their day in the sun finally ended.
I do recognize that the U.S. is a threat to theocrats everywhere. Consumerism doesn't work without the individual consumer, and we are the consummate consumerist society. Don't forget it's the reason we have the billions to spend on our military budget.
Once a person is capable of seeing that these issues are this large, that they concern not aspects of individual societies but the conflict between two very potent and robust societies, hopefully that person is capable of seeing that knee jerk reactions(such as those present in the posts that inspired my original comment, not your's) are inappropriate.
P2P Mail?? (Score:1)
Why hasn't someone come out with a good peer-to-peer mail system yet?
It would appear to me that this would be the best solution to the carnivore problem, and the mail could be encrypted at the same time.
Plus the added benefit of doing the handshake between the two clients could negotiate a new key everytime there was a new mail sent.
Then run a local mail server on the client, and voila, all of the current email clients are supported and its seamless. When you want to send a mail ... back to the local mail server, and it will startup a P2P session to the party that you want to send a mail to ...
Failing sending the mail P2P, it COULD default to 'normal' mail ...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Think Private (Score:1)
Reasons to Think Private:
- Virus/Worms [symantec.com] are primarily written for Windows
- Server Attacks [alldas.org] are primarily on Windows
- Carnivore is X86 Wintel Exclusive?
Perhaps not the best new apple campaign...hrrmmm.
altivore (Score:1)
ISS offers the source code for "altivore" a "feature complete version of Carnivore". It gives you a pretty good idea of how it works.
http://www.networkice.com/press/altivore.html [networkice.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Not just an online problem (Score:3, Informative)
A mail cover consists of recording the information on the outside of all the mail delivered to the target home or business. It is done by the post office at the request of a local, state or federal law enforcement agency and lasts for one or more 30-day periods.
<snip>
... a mail cover doesn't need a judge's approval. Nor, as in wiretaps, are the targets of a mail cover eventually notified of the practice. The only way to learn about it is through discovery in a legal proceeding, if the lawyer asks the right questions.
And of course:
Its use has risen by more than half since the mid-1980s.
It's time people realized that surveillence isn't just about Carnivore and face recognition.
A wise man once said (Score:2, Insightful)
Want to buy a Carnivore? (Score:5, Informative)
www.niksun.com
Carnivore is called NetDetector for commercial sales.
http://www.niksun.com/products/pdf_files/
About $20k, runs on BSD.
NetDetector != Carnivore (Score:2, Informative)
Jam with M-x spook (Score:4, Informative)
You can get my comprehensive spook.lines file at http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~tom7/spook/ [cmu.edu]. They're included below for your terrorist-finding pleasure.
$400 million 1 October 15 May 1600 Pennsylvania Ave 17 November 3rd October 747 757 767 ACLU ADF AES AIDS AIIB AK-47 ALIR ANO ARD ARN ASALA ASG Abu Dis Abu Nidal Abu Sayyaf Aceh Merdeka Aden-Abyan Afghanistan Ahl-e-Hadees Air Force One Al Qaeda Al Quaida Al-Fatah Al-`Asifa Alamo Albanian Alex Boncayao Brigade Alliance of Eritrean National Force Alliance pour la resistance democratique Allied Democratic Forces American American Airlines Amn Araissi Arab Revolutionary Brigades Arab Revolutionary Council Arafat Area 51 Aum Shinrikyo Aum Supreme Truth Avtomat Kalasnikov BATF Babbar Khalsa Baghdad Berlin Bhinderanwala Tiger Force Black September Brigate Rosse CERT CIA CIRA CNDD CNRM CNRT Catholic Reaction Force Cessna China Chukaku-Ha Clinton Cocaine Communist Conseil Cuba DCS1000 DDoS DES DFLP DNA DXM Dal Khalsa Dayak Delta Airlines Delta Force Dev Sol Devrimci Sol DoS EFF ELF-RC ESSA EZLN Eastern Shan State Army Eiffel Tower Ejercito Popular Boricua Ejercito Popular Revolucionario Ellalan Force Eritrean Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna FALINA FALINTIL FALN FBI FMLN FRETILIN FROLINA FSF Farabundo Marti Fatah Force 17 Free Aceh Ft. Bragg Ft. Meade GHB GIA GRAPO George Bush George W Bush Gerakin Aceh Merdeka Grey Wolves H2O2 HAMAS Hague Conference Harakat ul-Ansar Hawari Hitler Hizb-i Wahdat Hizb-i-Islami Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Hizballah Hizbullah Honduras ICBM IIS 5.0 IRA IRA Ikhwan-ul-Mussalmin Interahamwe Iparretarrak Islamic Israel JKLF Jamaat ul-Fuqra Jamat-e-Islami Jamiat-e-Ahl-e-Hadees John Dillinger KGB KKK Kach Kahane Chai Kashmir Kennedy Khaddafi Khalistan Khmer Rouge Komala Kosovo Kurdish Kurdistan Kuwait LSD LSD LTTE La Cosa Nostra Lakshar-e-Taiba Lautaro Legion of Doom Lenin Les mongoles MAPU/L MD5 MDMA MI6 MILF MNLF Macheteros Macheteros Mafia Maktab al-Khidamat Mantis Manuel Rodriguez Marxist Maubere Resistance Mayfly Mayi-Mayi Middle-Core Mohajir Qaumi Mong Tai Morazanist Mossad Mothaidda Quami Mujahedin-e Khalq Myanmar NORAD NSA Navy Nazi Nellis Range Noriega North Korea Oklahoma City Ortega Osama Bin Laden PALIPEHUTU PCP PETN PGP PLO Pakistan Panama Pearl Harbor Peking Provos Qaddafi RC5 RDX RENAMO RSA Reno Rijndael Romania Rule Psix SCUBA SDI SEAL Team 6 SHA SWAT Saddam Hussein Saheed Khalsa Scientology Semtex Serbian Shora-e-Jehad Sivi Vukovi South Africa Soviet Steyr Students of the Engineer TATP TEMPEST THC TNT Tal Al Za'atar Talaa' al-Fateh Tamil Eelam Teamsters Terra Lliure Treasury Tupac Amaru U-235 UN US Airways Usama Bin Laden Uzi WTO Waco White House World Trade Center World Trade Organization Zapatistas airframe airport al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya al-Jihad al-Qa'ida algorithm amatol ambush ambush ammo ammunition anonymous anti-tank archives armada armor armor-piercing arms arrangements assassinate assassination assassination assault atomic bomb bank account biological blowfish bomb bomb boobytrap border broken arrow c4 camera carnivore carnivore charcoal chemical child pornography chinese class struggle claymore cocaine cockpit codebook colonel commando composition b conspiracy constitution cordite corporate corrupt council counter-intelligence crack-cocaine cracking cray credit card cryptographic czar d-day data haven defcon defenses democratie detcord detonate detonators dictionary disruption dissent divers doctrine domestic doomsday double agent e-bola echelon ecstasy efnet embassy embassy embassy empire encrypt enigma espionage explosion explosive face recognition faction fertilizer fissionable flight 800 football freedom freemasons fuselage genetic gold bullion government grenades gun gunpowder guns h-bomb hack harbor heroin hijack hostage hostages hydrogen bomb hydrogen peroxide illuminati impulse incendiaries infiltration infosec infrastructure initiators insurgent intel international internet internet worm interpol ireland jihad kamikazi kampuchea ketamine kibo kill kill kill kill launch codes lead azide lead styphante liberate liberation limousine lockpick loyalist main charge man-in-the-middle marijuana martyr massive DDoS maverick mercury fulminate mescaline microfiche microfilm minefield mines motorcade motorola mouvement munitions napalm nationalist negotiation negotiatior nitric acid nitrocellulose nuclear nuclear nukes olympics oppressed orthodox outlook express password picric acid pipe-bomb plague platter charge plutonium plutonium policy political pornography pre-teen president president primers private key propaganda psyops public key pulse detonation engine radar rail gun rebel remailer resistance revolucionario rijndael robotic rocket fuel rockets root-servers.net rubella salt peter sanctions satelliate satellite satellite phone secret secret key secret service secure security sequence shaped charge shoe bomb shotgun smallpox smuggle sniper sniper socialist space station special k spy steganography strategic submarine subsonic suicide suicide bombing suitcase suitcase nuke sulfur supercomputer supersonic surveillance tear gas teflon bullets terminate terrorism terrorist theater missile defense thermite thermonuclear timers triacetone triperoxide tunneling undercover undernet underwater united nations uranium violence virus virus warfare wargames warrant weapons white house white noise generator windows XP wiretap zenith
Re:Hydrogen Peroxide (Score:2, Insightful)
simply encrypt public transfers of sensitive info (Score:5, Insightful)
Benjamin Franklin [benjaminfranklin.org] frequently sent letters through the US Postal Service. The contents of these letters were written in CODE. The specific purpose of encrypting his transmissions was because anyone could gain access to those letters in transit.
I would claim that this is the ultimate precedence for encrypting sensitive transmissions.
How is that for prior art?
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
The below is taken directly from the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology [virginia.edu] and is Copyright, 1997, John A. Fraser, III. J.D., Washington & Lee Univ. School of Law, 1980; Candidate for LL.M. Degree, University of Virginia, 1997.
In Colonial America, secret communications were used to defeat the efforts of government agents and social censors. Before 1700, John and Mary Winthrop of Puritan Massachusetts corresponded in a private cipher regarding intimate matters, thus concealing their affairs from persons who might read their messages while in the process of transmission by hand.[58] In 1748, George Fisher wrote, and Benjamin Franklin printed, an early American text on the uses of codes, ciphers, and secret writing to communicate only to the intended audience.[59] Because of the government practice of opening and reading private mail, and because mail might be stolen from the post riders, there was a substantial risk of exposure in colonial America.[60] In 1764, a young Thomas Jefferson suggested to John Page the use of a hundred-year-old English text (Shelton's Tachygraphia) to encode their letters to protect information about Jefferson's unsuccessful efforts to court a young lady.[61] When it was decided by a generation of revolutionaries to establish Committees of Secret Correspondence in all the colonies, which Committees acted in concert to oppose the Stamp Act of 1765, there was no shortage of knowledge about ways in which to maintain secret communications.[62]
attack of the Enquirer readers (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather intriguing that folks who aren't concerned about their privacy insist that everyone else not be concerned as well. In fact, they practically rant about it, insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with them is either paranoid or involved in some dark, nefarious scheme against All That Is Good And Right(TM).
If they were so bloody unconcerned they should be perfectly ready to accept the fact that others might have more stringent views, and accept them - but they aren't. No, they *demand* that you conform to their views on the matter - which indicates that they are indeed concerned: they want your life to be as open to inspection as their own boring little existence is.
Why? For the same reason that the halfwit readers of the Enquirer insist that public figures have no right to privacy: so that they at least have the chance to snoop on the life of someone more interesting. And participate in their destruction if they prove to be someone socially undesirable, like a bisexual or an atheist, or a bisexual atheist, or whatever is on today's hit-list parade.
In fact, the perverts who insist that they don't need privacy, and therefore neither do you (and they'll spend a great deal of energy making sure you don't get it), are nothing more than malicious little peeping toms hoping that legislation stripping away what little privacy we have left will provide them with the same sort of vicarious thrills that the Enquirer does now.
Make no bones about it: the truly unconcerned don't even bother to comment. They are, after all, *unconcerned*. Those that *do* make a point of commenting and then arguing about it are just plain shits - shits who want to first tell you you *can't* have something or do something, just to give themselves a false sense of power in their otherwise pathetic lives; and second, in the hopes of spying on you, either directly or through the government, in order to experience a real life second hand. Or better yet, in the hopes that your more interesting existence will be targeted and destroyed in a public fashion, malicious revenge for the ennui of their own useless, unimportant existence.
The people who argue against privacy aren't just expressing a viewpoint; they're lobbying to actively invade your life and try to extend some control over it. They aren't satisfied unless they know *everyone's* business and have the opportunity to rain all over the parade of people more interesting than themselves.
Make no mistake: these folks are just plain evil (with the small 'e'; they don't have the balls for the bigger one). Nothing more, nothing less. They are the enemy; a repulsive, squalling enemy, a mostly ineffectual, impotent enemy, but still an enemy. Bitch-slap the buggers whenever you can, for that's all that they deserve.
Max
Re:Just in case Yahoo gets slashdotted... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:bomb plot kill drugs conspiracy (Score:1)