FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone 413
Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, writes "There are places where criminal activity is centralized: the backbone hubs located in hosting facilities across the country. All of the Internet's activity, legal and illegal, flows through these 'choke points,' and the feds, of course, are already tapping those points and siphoning off data. What Mueller wants is the legal authority to comb through the backbone data, which is already being siphoned off by the NSA, in order to look for illegal activity."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Rule of Law. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:4, Interesting)
This sort of shit just brings it closer.
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:3, Interesting)
George Walker Bush
Richard Bruce Cheney
Larry Edwin Craig
Oh, you wanted pictures, too. Okay. How about this one [indymedia.ie]? The big banner says it all.
The people who have the most to fear from this are the politicians. After all, if the FBI can snoop it, guess what will inevitably follow? One word: Net-Watergate. Your political enemies won't cave in to your demands on that anti-terrorism bill? Threaten to expose that they visited hot-young-underage-nymphos-with-bags-over-their-heads-and-bushy-underarm-hair.com on twelve separate occasions in the last year.
Yikes.
Misleading Summary Title (Score:3, Interesting)
What was said in the article was:
It has nothing to do with filtering the traffic on the network, which implies blocking/removing valid packets. It only means implementing a search capability that can use keyword filters (like searching in the gnarled mess for the word "Kalashnikov").
It is bad that they are dumping all this data for perusal later, obviously. But what they are asking for in the article is just a better way to search around in that data. It's not really anything new.
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, by "backbone" the slashdot article writer was also being presumptuous. The FBI director was talking about stopping bad guys at their "choke point", and Ars Technica gave their own interpretation of what he meant by candidly assuming he meant an Internet backbone (or "hub"). Yes the US government can and does access these hubs (illegally perhaps, that is something the courts may not have the executive power to decide). The FBI also presumably wants access to the information that the NSA does (talk about information sharing between disparate government agencies!). Alas, however, a "choke point" could very well just mean the initial spotting (or IP address, gateway, etc) of a botnet virus that could be garnered from more liberal eavesdropping laws. Let's not make assumptions (in the article topic) and take them as is.
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:5, Interesting)
George Walker Bush
Richard Bruce Cheney
Larry Edwin Craig
Oh, you wanted pictures, too. Okay. How about this one [indymedia.ie]? The big banner says it all.
The people who have the most to fear from this are the politicians. After all, if the FBI can snoop it, guess what will inevitably follow? One word: Net-Watergate. Your political enemies won't cave in to your demands on that anti-terrorism bill? Threaten to expose that they visited hot-young-underage-nymphos-with-bags-over-their-heads-and-bushy-underarm-hair.com on twelve separate occasions in the last year.
Yikes.
Re:FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Security (and in this case privacy) is only as good as the weakest link (which is almost always the people using these products). So for example, if you are a terrorist (or a democracy activist) wanting to use these anonymous resources to meet up with people in person, then you've pretty much blown your privacy.
Also, I don't see any reason why you couldn't use these technologies on a private (or semi-private) wireless mesh network. I can't see wireless mesh being in itself more secure than using something like Tor. It depends on how it's setup I suppose.
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone used any of the variety of openVPN providers located outside the country? This is getting asinine and for just general web browsing I'm considering this. My concern is : Those openVPN places could just as easily be fronts for our feds or even worse, fronts for identity thieves, etc.
Besides, if this is allowed how long before RIAA, MPAA, etc tries to get authority to sniff packets. Or Comcast starts doing it on their own.
Re:Will my fellow conservatives please speak up? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which candidates would that be? Ron Paul? Dennis Kucinich? Maybe two or three of the candidates running for Congressional seats? The problem is that none of the major party candidates are running on that platform. As you correctly suggest, the two major parties have become opposite sides of the same coin, two wings of the same party.
No, the problem is in thinking that electoral politics is going to solve our problems. It isn't. It is fine to use it as a tool, but we also need to understand that the ballot is our weakest weapon.
Re:And how do we break the backbone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will my fellow conservatives please speak up? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The muzzies? (Score:3, Interesting)
The choice was deliberate. Let's assume for a moment that the vast majority of muslims do in fact hate the west. They don't like our liberal society, they don't like that globalization is forcing a re-examination of their own values and the don't even have a good relationship with christian countries - having been fighting them for 1500 years. Let's assume that we all hate each and other and that all of the above is true.
Take all of that, and ask - is is really that big of a threat? That's what I'm asking... and I'm saying, the answer is NO.
This isn't like Soviet Communism toppling regimes left and right. There's no Muslim equivalent of a Red Army putting 200 million people under occupation or a Wermacht invading all of Europe. This islamic threat can't even project food and water in their own borders, let alone have an industrial complex capable of funding a modern army like the Germans, Japanese, or Russians could. In fact, militarily, if it came right down to it, all of the Islamic armies combined could not even fight France.
I mean, last time I checked, the USA has 13 large aircraft carriers, plus around 20-30 smaller ones, a bunch of nuclear submarines, guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and then, if we got really bored, we have a couple of Iowa class battleships that we could reactivate. Add to that a few thousand combat aircraft...
What's Iran going to attack all that with? They couldn't even decisively defeat Iraq after ten years of fighting and we did that in a month.
It's like the whole idea of some vast Muslim threat is utterly ludicrous.
Because we knew better (Score:3, Interesting)
Because we let this go on amongst ourselves for way too long. We were the ones that identified, as Reagan said, "The government is the problem"... we were the ones that argued against the IRS, and a host of other government regulations on the grounds that they were an attack on state and ultimately individual sovereignty and would lead to a police state.
But, wow, Bush gets in, we get into a war, and the next thing you know, we actually HAVE the makings of an institutionalized police state, and we just say "oh, ok, but its to fight the terrorists.." It's the weakest excuse ever.
Now, we know that its been almost a decade where the legal framework that created this monster was enacted in the wake of 9/11, and, we're in serious danger of institutionalizing it. It's crazy talk. I mean, guys at a train station with machine guns, live automatic weapons. WTF is up the that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
What has changed with people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Must I remind all those who don't find stuff like this to be at least a little bit disheartening the following passage from what should be a very important document to all Americans:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
What is really ironic in these times is that to many, "general public and espicially those in power", that my belief in and my quoting that passage probably makes me out to be some bad guy.
These days however if you were to believe in or propose such a thing that our government, the very government founded and established by this document would likely want to question you, harrass you, publicly ruin you, arrest you, deem you an enemy of the state and so on.
Does anyone believe the people of this country could ever rise up again or truly take a stand against our government?
I just don't think its possible anymore.
We will slowly loose our rights as is evident by what has been happening. People will become compliacent in things. People will continue to use and believe the "if you have nothing to hide" argument which in turn just means those that don't believe that (small minority) are simply quacks or nut jobs or criminals looking for a way to maintain their evil ways.
And of course if you even bring up the notion of forming a new government, well your just a non-american, non-patriotic, commie ass and if you don't like this country you should leave.
I suppose the only thing left is for the oil to run out one day, financial crisis looms, those in power and those running the country loose their money / wealth, the military machine and might crumbles with no oil. The people rise, and who knows. Sounds like a mix of movie themes there, who knows it might happen. Oil is pretty much the foundation of everything currently. Its sort of like what water is to life, oil is to industry and the life we all know. It would explain the middle east and why our politico's are so concerned with it the people there right? ;-) Could they be afraid of loosing this resource, and thus what their whole fortunes and futures are based on? Could that be why the prices are going up and these companies are making crazy profits? Maybe they are stock piling money for the inevitable day when it all dries up? And of course the more you can take from everyone else, the less they have and the harder their lives are to sustain and become increasingly depend on those with to give them a helping hand and thus willing to become obidient little lambs to their overlords.
Re:Child porn is a big problem, take our word for (Score:3, Interesting)
This is especially true when you consider that CGI child porn that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing is illegal to possess (thanks to the PROTECT Act), and that people are being arrested for pasting pictures of children's heads on naked adult bodies:
It's worse than that. At least one person [wikipedia.org] has been prosecuted for writing fiction with pedophilic themes. It's all just thoughtcrime, and pedophiles appear to be the backup boogeyman just in case the sheep stop being afraid on cue whenever their masters say 'terrorists'.
Re:Rule of Law. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with the UK is that camera's are everywhere and they are used to monitor everything. Yes, I admit to myself that I may very well be hypocritical in my statements (I personally don't want to be monitored, but I want bad people to be caught). There-in lies the contradiction.
One must always try to solve the root of the problem (why people are running red lights) as opposed to attempting to treat the symptoms. Unfortunately there are always political implications (if most red-light runners are 'visible minorities' for example, then this is a [IMHO an inappropriate] trump for 'racial' discrimination.)