Cops To Congress: We Need Logs of Americans' Text Messages 342
Dainsanefh tips a CNET report about a number of law enforcement groups who have put forth a proposal to the U.S. Senate to require wireless providers to keep logs of subscriber text messages for a minimum of two years.
"As the popularity of text messages has exploded in recent years, so has their use in criminal investigations and civil lawsuits. They have been introduced as evidence in armed robbery, cocaine distribution, and wire fraud prosecutions. In one 2009 case in Michigan, wireless provider SkyTel turned over the contents of 626,638 SMS messages, a figure described by a federal judge as 'staggering.' Chuck DeWitt, a spokesman for the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, which represents the 63 largest U.S. police forces including New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago, said 'all such records should be retained for two years.' Some providers, like Verizon, retain the contents of SMS messages for a brief period of time, while others like T-Mobile do not store them at all. Along with the police association, other law enforcement groups making the request to the Senate include the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, DeWitt said."
Americans to cops: (Score:5, Interesting)
We'll start using encrypted apps instead of SMS
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on the incentive.
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:4, Insightful)
Still not a fucking reason to give up an ounce of privacy. Crime is low. I don't see any evidence that the police can't manage to keep order without reading our SMS messages from the past two years.
Catch 22: (Score:3)
If they use obvious encryption, they will flag themselves to be investigated by other means.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they use an app that bypasses the SMS network entirely. Plenty of stories out now about things like Facebook messenger killing SMS.
Can't be that hard to create a custom app if need be that uses a more secure backend.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Very true, but it means that there has to be active work done instead of just a cronjob of a bunch of greps that spit out results.
Every time a proposal like this hits, it just escalates the arms race:
IP addresses get logged, the crooks move to proxies. Said proxies get raided, they moved to offshore ones in countries that are at best indifferent to US demands.
P2P swarms get recorded, so people just find a fast proxy across the pond.
If text messages get recorded, there are a lot of smartphone apps for Andro
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why encrypt data if you do to care if the government knows it?
Or you actually believe that the FBI could not know everything about you if they wanted to?
Encryption does no good if you control the sender/receiver, or built a back-door into the encryptor/phone to begin with.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Funny)
For my part, everything in my house, save the gaming rigs, uses encrypted storage not because I have anything terribly important stored, but because I want it to be as difficult and time-consuming as humanly possible for the jackboots to find absolutely nothing. I'm sort of an asshole like that.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite is the posts about how you create a hidden subdirectory with files that have child porn names like, "9yr_old_girl_first_time_anal". The FBI has to view the file, only to find a video with a 10 hour long loop of some hilarious shit like He-Man Master of the Universe in the gayest music video ever.
Of course, the real joke being the policy that the FBI has to actually inspect all 10 hours of a footage, lest some clever pedophile hide the video 2/3rds of the way in, interlaced in the frames like something from the movie Contact.
I figure wasting a TB on nested TrueCrypt containers, all with stuff of that nature, plus inane bullshit like cook books, could keep the FBI busy for months on end.... even if they got the keys from me.
Then of course I realize, the joke would also be on us. The FBI would go to the Senate and demand 50 billion dollars to increase their task force and processing power to actually comply with something so fucking ridiculous. We would pay for the joke in our taxes. It's not like they would learn anything, or get a clue right?
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the whole point. I pointed out in a talk once that the unencrypted email we used (this was in the 90s) was like sending everything written on a postcard. Encrypted email, was more like sending it in an envelope (yes I know an envelope or insecure encryption can be bypassed easily but it stops casual inspection).
We'd think someone a bit odd if they insisted that all mail to and from them, even love letters, bills, and financial statements had to be sent as postcards rather than in an envelope.
And yet, many at the time thought it odd that anyone would go to the trouble of encrypting email unless they had some deep dark secret to hide.
The history of email was such that we trained ourselves to not use the equivalent of envelopes.
Because of that, encrypting common messages that aren't among accepted sensitive categories seems odd. In truth, it would be better to have encryption be by default and unencrypted be the oddity. That way truly sensitive information wouldn't be flagged as interesting because they were encrypted.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:4, Interesting)
I was investigated repeatedly by the NSA and they couldn't produce more than half a sheet of paper about me. They got a 20 page thick tome when they were done, made up entirely of things I admitted to under polygraph, and denied my clearance. 80% of my life was unaccountable to them. It frightened the shit out of them.
I don't go to any great lengths to hide. I'm just highly compartmentalized, enough that few people know much about me at all, and there's not a lot of pieces to put together. People who grew up with me can't ascribe anything more to me than face-value. Where does he go? What are his hobbies? Oh... I dunno, we just went to high school together for four years, never seen him outside school, never talked about his home life or family ... he seems good at computers, I think one day he'll be Bill Gates..
Absolutely nothing on me. Not like... no criminal history, no dirt... but nothing. I look like a constructed identity. A really obvious constructed identity. Problem is they're looking at my real identity and I have no actual background; records for school, medical records--which barely fit on half a page--and a few people who recognize my name but know nothing about me and have no alibi for where I've been ever.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you were denied a clearance for an obvious lack of community ties. Stuff like that is important, because if you're going to be trusted with sensitive information, your superiors will want to be sure you have "something to lose," like your family and friends back home. If you are a non-entity with no clear motives and no attachments to other people, what's to stop you from selling everything you know to the highest bidder?
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow western societies (both in Yurp and Yankeeland) these day's think you are a weirdo if you like your privacy.
The "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"-card is played far to easy, just as the "we need to do this to fight terrorists/paedophiles"-card. (respectively Yankeeland and Yurp in case you wondered) Do you, as a
The exception here is Germany, but than again they have had some experience with the government wanting to know a little bit to much about its civilians (Gestapo / Stasi, in case you were puzzled a bit again). The most important tool a government has to control its people is data. And if you think things like that wont happen these day's I guess you go and do a history course...
While you're there say hi to the guys of the SSD for me, will you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Security_Department
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was investigated repeatedly by the NSA and they couldn't produce more than half a sheet of paper about me. They got a 20 page thick tome when they were done, made up entirely of things I admitted to under polygraph, and denied my clearance. 80% of my life was unaccountable to them. It frightened the shit out of them.
The NSA are using a polygraph? A lie-detector? Why didn't they just use a horoscope or tea-leaf reading, or something equally reliable?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Catch 22: (Score:4, Insightful)
Polygraphs aren't used as lie-detectors (by any one competent). They're used to trick people into confessing (like all interrogation techniques).
When I was at LANL (2006) they didn't require them for clearance (and most of the cleared staff scientists I knew outright stated they would have refused them for exactly the reason you point out), but they did offer it as an option for "expedited clearance."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I have another anecdote opposite yours. I was once in Florida in my wallet got stolen including my plane ticket and my ID. I didn't notice until I got to the airport. Homeland security pulled me aside and said they could help, if I could just answer a few questions to prove my identity. they asked me the name of the dog that I had when I was 8 years old, the name of my third grade teacher, and the name of the church where I was married. , but they gave me my plane ticket and said I was good to go.
Re:Catch 22: (Score:5, Informative)
Currently, the FBI really only sticks its nose into people that have done something 'big.'
You're serious? You haven't seen the dozens [techdirt.com] of cases [techdirt.com] where the FBI manufactured [techdirt.com] a bomb [endthelie.com] plot [thisamericanlife.org] from some moron who chimed in on a 'shady' website that he wanted to bomb the US?
Re: (Score:3)
Even the Gestapo didn't have the manpower or resources to follow up all the denunciations they got, and they didn't even have the Internet to work with. The FBI may well be very, very capable of making your life miserable in 100 different ways if they want to, but trying to do that to everyone gets tiring even for Big Brother. Sure, they know *exactly* who you are as soon as you get annoying enough to show up on their radar, but if you never do, you could probably talk about pot in every venue you can thi
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:4, Funny)
I really am not interested in training my drug dealer how to use encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
"I really am not interested in training my drug dealer how to use encryption."
Just text him: I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbells.
He'll know what you mean.
uText is not a solution for everybody (Score:2)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.uwho.utext.sms&hl=en
It's not a solution for everybody. From the page: "This app is incompatible with all of your devices." It only works if both ends of the connection have Android phones, smartphone plans, and a copy of this paid application. I imagine that some privacy-minded people use prepaid "burner" phones. But in the United States market, smartphone service can cost seven times as much as dumbphone service (source: virginmobileusa.com). A lot of carriers will not activate an Android phone on a dumbphone plan (in the cas
Re: (Score:3)
Cops if they are doing their job, they would like to have more information. However I hope congress is working for the Americans and realize our justice system was designed to favor the innocent, Law enforcement cannot be an easy or an efficient job, even though they will be able to catch more bad guys and probably save a lot of lives. American Liberty is the greater good over safety.
Re:Americans to cops: (Score:4, Insightful)
Because warrants today are trivial, meaningless documents, except for the ridiculously wealthy. The average Joe doesn't know how to or have the means to hire somebody that can fight cases on procedural grounds, which results in a system that can be abused 99% of the time without repercussion... and you'd be a fool to think that the police do not both know about and take advantage of this.
In a system where you are entitled to only so much justice as you can afford, it is in our best interest to restrict whenever possible the powers of the police and the judiciary.
Re: (Score:3)
But a harm to liberty? Unless warrants are too easy to obtain, I'm not seeing it. And if the problem is that warrants are too easy to obtain
Warrants are too easy to obtain, but we don't even have to go there.
First, there is no real warrant requirement. If the service provider wants to share the texts with law enforcement, they can, warrant or no warrant. Second, once all this data is collected and costing the service providers money, they will mine it/sell it/monetize it somehow. It will also be available to hackers. Be it by law enforcement, governments, corporations, or hackers, this data will be abused.
And, in the end, it's nobody's business
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
They are commuting stock/bank fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
They are commuting stock/bank fraud.
To a lesser sentence while driving to work? Judges are getting really lazy these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn! I "commuted" a brain fart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
i use PGP with gmail, i write my emails on thunderbird sign encrypt, thunderbird has via pop access to gmail so i'm good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was that easy the police wouldn't have been able to wiretap anything once skype came out (until the MS takeover and it is presumably now wire-tappable).
The phone system isn't secure, from the government or hackers, but people still use it for all sorts of business. People who know full well their technology can be tapped and tracked still use it for criminal purposes, because most people, criminals included, are stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but every single phone isn't tapped and recorded for 2 years.
This is slightly different.
The People to Cops.... (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
Re:The People to Cops.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The People to Cops.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cell companies to cops... and marketeers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show us yours, we'll show you ours?
No (Score:5, Interesting)
These messages shouldn't be archived. If the police need to see the communications, they should be required to get a warrent, and only be able to intercept communications as their happening - as would happen with a wiretap.
Law enforcement should not be able to go back through prior communications that occurred before they got a warrant.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The police normally only investigate crimes after they have already happened so they need to get evidence from the time period that the crime happened in.
I agree with you that they should need to get a warrant, much like they have to to get your phone records, but I think that they should be allowed to get text messages that are less than one month old, but beyond one month they should only get a notice that a text happened, but not the actual message.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think they should be able to get the audio of any phone conversation up to a month old? Why should one kind of data be retained, for no other reason than its easy and cheap to retain, but not another?
Why should text recieve, in any way, less protection than audio, other than due to a side effect of the technical details of how it is implemented?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they should be able to get the audio of any phone conversation up to a month old?
If that was information that was normally stored in the course of business, then yes, but there should be no special provisions asking the phone companies to start storing that information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's default that most phones save messages, and because it's convenient for a large majority of users. Due to this, phones record innumerable amounts of texts; smartphones especially.
Change how the phone works, and you change the expectation of content delivery, archival, and investigation.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't granting them access with a warrant. The problem is that they are trying to induce storage for no other reason than to maintain a POTENTIAL evidence database.
Why should there be a requirement to maintain these messages? Should there be a requirement to make a copy of every letter that passes through the post office and maintain it for x months? Of course not, because such a copy isn't necessary to transmit the letter.
I hate that people treat the default for all Rights these days in the manner of: None, unless proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree they should be able to get the information if they have a warrant, but that the companies should not be forced to store the information.
Basically I'm not looking to put stupid barriers in the way of a criminal investigation, but not looking for this to become a police state.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with the carriers not storing records
The police who are talking to congress about the issue do have a problem with that. That's the whole issue under contention here. Whether service providers should be forced to store records so that police can look through them in the future. In your first message you said that police should be able to get records less than one month old. That sounds to me like endorsement of the police's position under discussion here.
If you actually believe that se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was constantly getting accused of shit I didn't do then there is a chance I would do exactly that. That would be in conjunction with a lawsuit and the voice records would help me win.
Now, I'm sure you won't like this, but is comparable.
I live on a very short street and there is really no reason to be on the street if you don't live there or have any business with people who do live there. There have been some robberies. I am planning on putting a camera in a window to record all traffic to be made a
Re: (Score:3)
your examples involve having a reason first, and then collecting information that applies to a specific case. This is the exact opposite of what the message storing requirement would be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
If my math is right, a person talking on the phone for an hour per day is only a little over 4 gigs per year at typical cell phone bitrates. Are you saying that it is unrealistic for the phone company to keep 12 gigabytes of storage per customer for three years? If not, then voice recording is not unrealistic.
Based on that, the fact that they aren't doing voice recording means there's something fundamentally wrong about doing so, and text messages should not be any different.
Re: (Score:3)
Your math is a little off, it'd be closer to ~131MB per year, assuming they are using the FS-1015 codec (800bits/sec).
800*3600*365/8=131MB
Re: (Score:3)
No, they should obey the terms of the warrant, and the 4th amendment.
You know, that niggle little screed the founding fathers sharted out that says the police have to have a specific list of things they are to take when exercising a warrant, and that everything else is private property and hands-off?
Yeah. That one.
Re: (Score:3)
18 terabytes per month (Score:5, Insightful)
it would be unrealistic to record every phone call
I disagree. The capacity of communications networks increases over time, but the user base of voice does not increase as fast because it's already hit saturation. Say there are 300 million cell phone subscribers in a market, and each spends 1000 minutes on the phone per month, and each call is recorded at 8 kilobits per second. 300,000,000*1000*60*8/8 is only 18 terabytes per month. What's the total size in bytes of video uploaded to, say, YouTube per month?
More like 18 petabytes (Score:3)
What's the analagous communication type? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the USPS need to scan all letters? Do cell conversations need to be recorded and stored? Do emails need to be retained by the host?
Is this April 1st?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the realistic answer to why they don't. It's stupid, because of course taxpayer money should not be a concern compared to our civil liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
they never had it before... (Score:2)
This is in violation of the US Constitution and they can be considered showing intent to violate it. They should lose their jobs as clearly they are not acting in accord to the public they are supposed to serve, Neither are the politicians who will likely pass it.
Re: (Score:3)
They may obtain said text messages with a warrant obtained legally.
This is how we do things in America. We are not a police-state. We are not a military-state.
Deal with it.
Re:they never had it before... (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, you are totally missing the point. Its not a question of whether they should be able to obtain the messages, legally, with a warrant (which, incidentally, they currently don't actually need as far as I know). Thats totally off topic, if its there, of course they can get at it with cause.
The question is, why should it be retained. Why should the phone company be REQUIRED to store data, from everyone, all the time, based on their assertion that they might need to request it later?
My phone calls are not recorded, why should they not also be required to retain the audio of the calls? Why, other than current details of old laws, should the two types of personal data, be in in any way, treated differently?
Re:"We are not a police-state." (Score:2)
Ah... The good old days.
Today:
At the border: Papers Please!
Walking down the road: Papers Please!
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/case.html [papersplease.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They may obtain said text messages with a warrant obtained legally.
Irrelevant to the problem.
This is how we do things in America. We are not a police-state. We are not a military-state.
To the extent that true (and it's less true every year), it's because we citizens stand up against efforts like this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Cops to self: "This is obviously code for methyl-p"
Self to cops: "No it's not - she's making some icing for a carrot cake"
Cops to self: "Ho ho, merry christmas and save me a slice"
Code need not be complex.
Makes me glad I'm switching (Score:2)
Gives me extra comfort in switching to t-mobile like I am currently planning to do.
By the way, anybody in the Phoenix area (east valley especially) care to comment on the quality of service t-mobile offers here? I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
A girl sent me a 950KB picture yesterday that took my phone 18 minutes to download. The Sprint network in Phoenix blows. I'm not sure how to find the article now, but I seem to remember a survey from a couple years ago which claimed that Verizon had the best network in Phoenix. That may have changed though. All I know is that Sprint can't be bothered to put 4G service here, even though I have a 4G Sprint phone that's 2 and a half years old.
Re: (Score:3)
I like how cheap their plans are, and Sprint has very well pissed me off lately so I'm in the process of ditching them.
A girl sent me a 950KB picture yesterday that took my phone 18 minutes to download. The Sprint network in Phoenix blows. I'm not sure how to find the article now, but I seem to remember a survey from a couple years ago which claimed that Verizon had the best network in Phoenix. That may have changed though. All I know is that Sprint can't be bothered to put 4G service here, even though I have a 4G Sprint phone that's 2 and a half years old.
Of course, the question on all our minds:
How'd her boobs look?
And in 3 years.... (Score:2)
Yes, because communication companies can always be trusted to secure their user's data. Ignore those black-suit guys with the sunglasses and the CIA/FBI/NSA badges working in the Farraday cage room with biometric security, they are NOT streaming your text messages to Langley/DC/Fort Meade for analysis. There are not Exabytes of storage capabilities at said facilities in order to "protect national security".
Nothing to see here folks. /sarcasm
Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about complete audio recordings of all phone calls, and copies of every piece of mail delivered?
Or did you try that before [wikipedia.org], and ran into some trouble with the Supreme Court, the Fourth Ammendment, and a planet full of Ewoks [wikipedia.org] over forty years ago?
Know what would really make sense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not require cops to put video/audio recorders in all their cars and require them to keep the tapes for 2 years. Make any missing tape a felony so that the incentive to "lose" them disappears. That would do more to make our country a better place than keeping SMS messages.
Re:Know what would really make sense? (Score:5, Interesting)
And suddenly, 50% of the nation's police force is behind bars for assault, bribery, extortion, racketeering, corruption, domestic violence, solicitation..... you get the idea.
Re:Know what would really make sense? (Score:5, Informative)
Citizen to congress... (Score:2)
The hell they do.
Texts need to be treated the same as verbal communications. Law enforcement needs to acquire permission to wire tap a persons phone ahead of time. Then, and only then should the texts be logged or stored. Or should the phone companies be expected to keep a recording of all conversations over their networks for two years also?
so, basically.. (Score:2)
So, basically they are saying something like this:
"But you want us to stop those dirty, nasty people that want to sell your little angel a bag of crack, and who want nothing more than to destroy our way of life, right? Well, in order to do that any better than we alread are, because those people are adapting to the changing flow of technology, we will have to have access to those mediums!"
We should reply in kind:
"Text messages should be intercepted live, and not recorded in advance. Your convenience is not
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that isn't how this will pan out. My cynical nature screams at me that the police will kick their feet, balk, whine, and throw a PR hissyfit with the press about those mean, dirty people with their dirty secrets wanting to hurt innocent people and children in order to protect themselves from justice, by supressing the motion.
You're less cynical than I am. I think that the conversation will go something like this:
Police: We think we should trap all text messages.
Congress: Can we use this to spy on Occupy protesters, right-wing protesters, and anyone else we find politically inconvenient?
Police: Sure, no problemo.
Congress: Ok, passed unanimously with no debate.
Crazy (Score:2)
The police seem to think that they have some magical right to eat away at our rights in order to do their jobs. Well what about an appliance salesman, shou
why not record everything (Score:3)
I would help the cops more if the microphone was always on a complete recording of everything in ear shot of the phone was kept in storage for when it was needed. Seems silly, just wait for bandwidth and storage costs to drop a little more.
Whose phone is it? Who is paying for the service? Why does my phone have to serve the usage of the police? Why can't it do what I want, send and receive messages with no record?
Why is there the assumption that because it can be done it must be done? ((... "for the sake of the children"...))
Why can't we have devices that serve the user?
Proposal to Law Enforcement (Score:3)
I have no problem with the carriers having 1 year retention of SMS messages if law enforcement have no problem with getting a court ordered warrant before they can access them. The warrant needs to be narrowed to a particular phone number and for a specific date/time range and not a blanket "everything in this zip code during the month of July".
More than 1 year retention required by Law enforcement and they aren't doing their jobs properly. And sorry Columbo, no peeking without probable cause.
just one app to kill this (Score:2)
All it would take is one android/ios app to read/send encrypted SMS messages and this would be defeated. Of course the cops would then try to extract your keys but that couldn't happen near as easy.
Libraries Too (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the fact that my library (and most others) destroy records of checkouts after you return a book so that the information can't be used in an investigation or trial.
Just because I read some Karl Marx, doesn't make me a commie. Likewise, just because I texted a quote from the Koran doesn't make me a terrorist.
Makes you wonder how they solved crime before (Score:2)
That's fine, but.... (Score:2)
...GET A FUCKING WARRANT FIRST!
And, no, a 'security letter request' or whatever else they are calling it these days it not acceptable. If you think you have need of text logs for an investigation, go through the proper channels.
FYI Current Providers (Score:2)
If you are interested in seeing what is currently being done:
http://www.aclu.org/cell-phone-location-tracking-request-response-cell-phone-company-data-retention-chart [aclu.org]
and
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/cellular-customer-data/ [wired.com]
I understand what the cops are getting at, creating a standard they can use. However they tried something like this on ISP up here and Canada, and there was a bit of row to say the least. Cops it seems in general will constantaly ask for more and more powers in order to basicall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but do you actually know any people?
I didn't use SMS for years, simply because most of the people I knew didn't use it so there was no point -- it's not like I was going to text myself.
Over the last few years, it's one of the primary ways I set up things with friends. It's easier, and someone can always choose to respond to a text or not -- which is easier than phoning someone.
I even get texts from my mother from time to time, so I'd definitely say a lot more people ar
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because Facebook and Google don't log SMSes (well, Google does if you use Google Voice). So the police already know they can get at all that data in your Facebook/Google account, but they don't have anything if you text.
If Google managed to log all SMSes as well
Re: (Score:2)
as for fb chat logs use a xmpp chat client and pgp plugin
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbLCHeXU694 [youtube.com]
*waves lighter in the air*
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically speaking her easy way to fix it encryption bans would be to sniff the wifi of congressmen's parents for bank info transfer all of their funds to their neighbor. Move their own to the local indian casino, start planting pron on their computers. Start monitoring their email and publishing it all on wikileaks pastebin and 4chan. or just post their own browser history and book marks. suddenly encryption looks like a great idea