Stacked Carnivore Review Team 161
Agent Z5q writes "According to this article at Wired News, the names of the Carnivore review team have leaked. (Cryptome.org on the ball as always.) The team consists of members who have all either worked on large-scale government projects or currently hold active security clearances, including a top secret rating from the National Security Agency, a top secret rating from the Department of Defense and other ratings from the Treasury Department. Looks like the deck is just a bit stacked."
D'ja read the Fine Print? (Score:2)
Re:Did we expect anything better? (Score:2)
I believe you are misinformed on both the prevalance of security clearances among university faculty and what holding a security clearance entails. With a little bit of effort you could find just as many, if not more, MIT, UCSD, etc. faculty and staff who hold active security clearances, many of which are high level clearances such as Defense Dept. Top Secret clearances and DOE Q clearances. Faculty in the sciences and engineering frequently consult on government projects and they are they often asked to serve on external review committees.
A security clearance simply means that under certain circumstances (a "need to know") these individuals may access classified information. It does not obligate them to participate in any specific programs per se, but rather requires of them only that they not disclose sensitive information to uncleared people or participate in activities (such as recreational drug use) that are perceived as making them vulnerable to blackmail. In the case of Carnivore technology this may be a good thing since much of the technology is undoubtedly classified anyway--if the reviewers have no clearances then evaluation of the program would wait until the evaluators got the required clearances. This would be the case regardless of which institution is called upon to review the technology, and it is an issue that is separate from wondering about the integrity and objectiveness of the committee.
It hardly requires a security clearance to "rubber stamp" a program. It only requires a rubber stamp.
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:2)
WRT US Residents VS foreign enemies: A US resident can also be a foreign enemy. Foreign spies working in the states would also be US residents. The CIA couldn't touch a US Citizen, living in the states and subverted/blackmailed by a foreign agency. A list of such people would probably be administered by the FBI and rated top-secret (and shared with the CIA "for use outside the country, only").
Re:emmm what has been their record for public (Score:1)
I'm not sure why the above post was moderated up... it's both obvious and redundant to question the objective nature of the handpicked reviewers.
This instance beautifully illustrates exactly why the government cannot be trusted to monitor our communications, police itself, or store and protect the information of private individuals.
Damnit, it sounds so fscking trite, but our rights must be fought for! Do something about it besides muttering inside a cubicle and posting on Slashdot - support the EFF [eff.org], support the ACLU [aclu.org]. And don't just support them with your voice - cough up just a little bit of that new hardware fund, or spend some time as a volunteer.
It's in the nature of a governmental organism to constantly expand bureaucracy and enlarge the scope and scale of the powers it possesses. The cold hard truth is that the people reading this bear the responsibility to ensure their own freedom.
If you don't help do it, it won't get done.
JDaemon
Stacked? (Score:1)
Re:whats the problem? (Score:1)
Nobody who's intelligent uses telnet for anything important anyway.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Re:Carnivore (Score:1)
-
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:1)
If they have REASONABLE SUSPICIONS of someone's guilt, then they should have to:
What part of this is unfair ? yes, some criminals would avoid detection.. But all innocent people would have due processes.
And besides, Who does the FBI REALLY work for ? It doesn't appear to be the american citizens anymore....
Re:Hilarious, if not so sad (Score:4)
Re:What the Clearance really means (Score:1)
Hi, we have completed our investigation and you passed. Here are the secret documents and here's a picture of you with your goat. Be a good boy and your wife won't get an extra Christmas card this year.
So what? This is such non-news. (Score:1)
Papa Smurf as an allegory for the FBI? (Score:3)
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:1)
It's far from sinister... giving it to a random assortment of engineers and political philosophers would have been less bright than failing to actually conceal their names
Re:emmm what has been their record for public (Score:2)
The real problem is people treating computers like glorified typewriters. They yank up their software, figure out how to "black out" the names by placing opaque black boxes over the name, and figure that's as secure as it is in the real world. Except that PDF is just a varient of PostScript, a fully fledged display language, so all they were really doing was causing the over-writing of a black box on perfectly intact data, which would be and was easily extracted by people with the right know-how (or the ability to try copying and pasting :-) ).
Adobe's software works as advertised, and there are definately uses for this sort of thing (like overlaying form elements, which can be useful), but they've been no more successful at removing the need to understand computers then anybody else, so you can still get yourself in trouble!
ps: Do you think that in 50 years, people will think our obsession with making computers "easy" to use (as distinct from user friendly, which is quite a different thing!) was a hopeless task?
The Law People (Score:5)
Henry Perritt
Here is his bio [kentlaw.edu] and home page [kentlaw.edu]. Excerpt from a paper [kentlaw.edu] of his: The Internet is a revolutionary phenomenon. It is not just a technology, but a way of organizing and connecting human activity, which emphasizes decentralization, specialization, and global cooperation. It is not merely a means for facilitating existing market and political institutions, but a way of redefining them altogether. The Internet is a new kind of market. It can be an electronic town hall in which rules are made, or an electronic courthouse in which disputes are decided.
...
The Internet threatens civic institutions such as the press, old interest groups, and professions (including the bar).
...
The Internet threatens established interest groups because it makes their techniques of recruitment, organization, and maintenance of membership solidarity less relevant.
...
The Internet also threatens market institutions such as stock exchanges.
...
In a larger sense, the Internet threatens traditional political intermediation because it threatens governmental control.
...
Not only must America's existing commitment to rule of law and interstate dispute resolution continue and be strengthened; America must also be more articulate in stressing the need for strong collective security arrangements.
Harold Krent
His bio [kentlaw.edu] and list of publications [kentlaw.edu]. I plan to review Executive Control Over Criminal Law Enforcement: Some Lessons From History, 38 AM. U. L. REV. 275 (1989).
What disturbs me is that neither Perritt or Krent are experts in criminal and/or constitutional law. It seems to me that that type of experience is what is truly needed while evaluating Carnivore. Carnivore is essentially a device, like any other device employed by law enforcement, for tapping information. I am constantly pissed off when the rules are bent, like in the case at hand, to treat an Internet-related device any differently. Moreover, the dean and the associate dean are to evaluate carnivore? They are one of the same.
Any opinions?
Please excuse me, this information makes me want to vomit.
Re:Alternative Choice (Score:3)
"After months of reviewing the 'Carnivore' system, we have decided there is nothing bad about it at all. In fact, this machine is completely secure, and is impossible to hack. It uses an advanced security method, New Technology File System, developed by Microsoft to keep its files protected and secret. This device is so great, every ISP in the world should have one. We, completely unbiased and open-minded, believe there should be a carnivore unit sitting behind every connection to the Internet - from the smallest DSL line to the biggest OC-128.
Again, we state, that there is no reason this should not be put out."
Re:Hilarious, if not so sad (Score:1)
Re:Stacked? (Score:1)
Stacked team (Score:2)
Re:You've proven the point! (Score:1)
Security Through Obscurity (Score:1)
Re:High Level Security Does Note Equal Stacked Dec (Score:1)
Thank you, Mo, finally a voice of reason. (And to answer your question, it was probably around 250,000.) Notable example: Dr. Fred Cohen [all.net], who works at the Sandia National Laboratories [sandia.gov], is very likely in possession of classification levels whose very names are classified, and is also one of the most outspoken critics of Carnivore and the FBI in general.
Once again, Slashdot showing the fact that just because you have a forum doesn't make you an expert in, well... anything. (I don't claim to be one either for that matter, just an informed amateur.)
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:1)
While I generally follow the rule of never attributing to evil intentions what can adequately be explained by stupidity, there are many units within the US gov't which can be basically classified as 'evil', worse since they tend to view themselves as having the highest moral authority.
Back north of the border, we've had fun over the years as various black boxes (Made in the U.S.A.) have been found at phone exchanges. (Before we had our own incompetent bunch of spies). As to mail, they've gotten a bit more sophisticated, but there was a period when you simply didn't send anything photo-sensitive if you were on the 'monitored' list. And, I gotta admit, as a computer type, a lot of ingenuity went into the program to assemble scanned strips of shredded paper.
Heck, it was only a decade back you could phone the NSA and ask about the crypto museum, only to be told that such a thing didn't exist. It had been open for a few months before they thought to tell the front desk that they could actually give out the info. Paranoia and rabid patriotism seems to be the prerequesites.
The comment regarding a class of CS101 students is a bit weird. Various security schemes are floated by universities (Go Waterloo!) on a regular basis. One of the basics of security is to assume that people will find out the method, but not the specific keys. (Think RSA). If Carnivore is to be a good security system, the structure should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a CS101 class. If that level of knowledge about the program would compromise it, then I suspect it's already inherently unsuitable to the task.
After they rubber-stamp it (Score:1)
In any case involving Carnivore, it will be imperative that the timestamps are double-, triple-, quadruple-checked against each other- timestamps on the computers of the sender and recipient, the warrant issued, and the record from Carnivore. The most blatant abuse will be that the FBI catches an email under an unauthorized filter, then grabs a warrant and changes the timestamp. If anywhere on the backbone (perhaps ISP?) also records a timestamp (however unlikely this is), it would be a key to the defense, considering the suspicion that will be placed on the timestamps from the defendants' computers.
Carnivore should be required to record the exact filters that it was operating under at the time of a catch, any code allowing filters not specific to a single email address or IP should be removed (as in no filters to search keywords like "FBI", "drugs", "bomb", etc.), and the people at MIT who rejected the Carnivore review should have to dream up and implement ways to prevent modifications to the Carnivore code and detect any modification attempts. These modifications from MIT should not be disclosed to the FBI (security through obscurity works both ways, FBI). Obviously, a Carnivore machine where a code alteration is attempted would become inadmissible in court, and this record of code alteration must appear on the record of intercepted traffic. Unfortunately, I think MIT would have their work cut out for them.
Can't trust those guys for a minute (Score:1)
Re:Who do you think hands out clearances??? (Score:2)
From the Special Agent who called me, AND IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS AN FBI SPECIAL AGENT, w/ regards to my friend who was getting his clearance in the Navy.
>but the FBI has nothing to do with acquisition
>of clearances for US armed service
>members.
Well, don't tell *ME*; tell the fscking bureau!!! Because unless that was a Navy guy lieing to me, it was a fscking fed.
>never saw a hoover, either while getting
>cleared or since
'Kay, *YOU* may have never been hassled by the fsckers, and may been fortunate enough to only deal with military security types, but who did they send to harass any non-military friends you may have listed as references? When the assholes called me, I ASKED why it was the FBI hassleing me and not the Navy. The guy told me that they did all of those investigations as a matter of course.
Now, my ordeal with the bureau WAS back in 1994, so mabye things have changed since. Another reply to my original post claims that the feds have since contracted out the background checks to private investigators. I can't confirm or deny that myself.
But I certianly remember WHO it was that called me SEVEN TIMES before getting the hint that I wasn't about to talk about my friends to the fucking feds. And I remember WHAT Special Fucking Agent Davidson spewed out before I told him to go fuck himself.
I'm bloody well NOT spilling ANY info on *MY* friends to the institutional descendents of J. Edgar Hoover... or hell... nor to any other "law enforcement" type either.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Wow... (Score:1)
Of course security professionals and people who have worked on these sorts of projects would be the best able to understand the issues involved. In this case, though, they're also the most likely ones to have conflicts of interest. I say, since this is a democracy and all, that we start voting them off the island and get a new group in there, pronto...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Karma whores (Score:2)
Being a karma whore requires sucking up to the Slashdot community. Anti-Microsoft incantations are obligatory, as well as ritualized spitting at RIAA and MPAA. Besides you have to either express yourself well or be entertaining.
Nah. Politicians have a looooong way to go before they can even aspire to the status of a Slashdot karma whore.
Kaa
Maybe I should clarify (Score:3)
Once again, I attend IIT, so maybe I'm biased here. I also know Dean Perritt and Harold Krent. In fact I've worked closely with Hank Perrit on a variety of projects. We didn't always get along, but I feel confident he will do a good job.
As a bit of a background, Perritt was one of the founders of a program called "Project Bosnia" which is designed to help restore the information infrastructure to Bosnia. Since then it has expanded to KRISYS Net (Kosovo Refugee Information System Network). I had the fortune to work with Perritt on both of these projects. Perritt is very aware of many of the issues that can come up from the filtering of information and government snooping of information as a result of these projects.
I've heard some comments about not being a criminal law expert or constitutional law expert. KentLaw is probably the best school to do this because it has such a focus on technology law. All you need to do is to look at the homepage [kentlaw.edu] and see the school has it's stuff together when it comes to the internet and the new world order.
As for IIT's relationship to this whole thing. KentLaw and IITRI operate fairly independently of the school and the main engineering school didn't have much (or anything at all) to do with the proposal. I'm not sure why the names were kept confidential, I just asked who was in charge of it and got a response in a few hours.
Re:Allow Jesus to enlighten... (Score:1)
Which Ad Network Isn't Evil? Nobody knows but Jesus.
Posted by Cliff upon Wednesday September 27, @01:36AM
from the as-long-as-it's-not-doubleclick dept.
WaldoJ writes: "One of mine sites, nancies.org, hath beenst doth doesting very well, traffic-wise. Hundreds of
thousands of donkey views each month. But our banner provider,
ContentZone, is fundamentally evil. Satan've beenst sued by Satan's clients, and Satan don't payest us plenty. Flycast hath beenst bought
by Engage, and Satan're apparently not so hot either. DoubleClick? Don't beget me started. It wouldst be exalted if we couldst run the site
without ads, but the hosting alone wouldst smite us. We tried the donations route, but that's goddamn this righteous. Mine question is this?
Nobody knows but Jesus. Which lies the least? Nobody knows but Jesus. Which pays the bestest? Nobody knows but Jesus. It sure wouldst
be helpful to beget some input." If thee hath to hath ads for thine site, it wouldst be nice to beget the most out of the hits thine site doest beget
without the hassles. Any recommendations?
( Read More... | 12 of 15 prayers )
Alternative Choice (Score:1)
Need to Know? Breathtaking competence here. (Score:4)
Even the existence of a clearance is need to know, not just the level. Even if we leave out the text that has been revealed behind the blackouts, the existence of active and inactive clearances was still plain.
Wow. I was impressed before, but now I am even more deeply impressed by the level of obfuscation. Secrecy doesn't just beget tyranny; it begets stupidity.
The folks who are doing the analysis may have clearance, but it doesn't mean that the FBI will get the analysis they want. Cleared is not always synonymous with lackey, brown-nose, or hypocrite. Let's not only prepare for the worst case review, but also an honest review. Just because you have a clearance doesn't mean that you will always agree with the folks who passed you the clearance. In fact, I've seen engineers with xxxx clearance turn red in the face and scream at the very brass who pay their contract and asked for the clearance. The brass didn't like it, but they signed the report.
Re:Did we expect anything better? (Score:1)
DMCA lawsuit! (Score:1)
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:1)
That's because everything they are doing is sinister. Bastards.
Let's think about this for a minute.... (Score:2)
1) Carnivore (probably) contains top secret NSA software technologies. Encryption, filtering, you name it.
2) The government NEVER lets ordinary people without security clearances view anything classified. And for good reason. They want to make sure their secret information stays secret.
Do you honestly think that the government would do otherwise? I highly doubt they'd let anyone, intelligent or no, work on this thing without a security clearance. It's top secret technology! And I know a lot of
Re:Um, duh? (Score:1)
Yes. But it is also the job of all concerned to give the security agencies a whack on the ass when they overreach themselves and start to believe they own the world.
Kaa
Re:The Problem with using people with S/C (Score:1)
Bringing long distance to your doorstep. (TM) (Score:2)
"...hey! For some reason the reception is REALLY good today!"
[looks up]
"YACK!!"
[jumps out of way of flaming satellite as it crashes into the ground]
"Hm... I've been disconnected."
Security of Federal Projects! (Score:1)
straw man (Score:3)
Re:Gee! (Score:1)
Judge: Court is in session. The accused is charge with placing classified materials on unclassified computers. How do you respond?
FBI: We've conducted a full review of ourselves and we found no evidence of intent.
Judge: Court is adjourned.
Wen Ho Lee: Wait, shouldn't we have an independent investigation?
FBI: We have chosen an independent investigator, impeccable record when he worked for us a few years ago, and he found no evidence of malfeasance.
Judge: Case closed
Wen Ho Lee: Can I choose my own prosecutor too?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it, leave! (Score:2)
I'm bloody well NOT spilling ANY info on *MY* friends to the institutional descendents of J. Edgar Hoover... or hell... nor to any other "law enforcement" type either.
If you despise this country, and it's security aparatus, so much, why are you still here? You are free to leave at any time. Unlike some countries, we don't force you to stay if you don't want to.
If you apply for a security clearance you are giving your permission for the background check. If you don't want people looking into your life, then you had better not sign on the bottom line.
It amazes me how people like to rag on our secuirty institutions such as the FBI, NSA, CIA, and NRO. Odds are, most of the people bitching have never had any direct dealings with these organizations. If these organizations didn't exist, we likely wouldn't have the freedom we do. Just as likely, Fidel Castro would be the provisional governor of the south-eastern quadrant of of North America.
Would you have rather of let the Seattle Space Needle be blown up last New Year? Would you have preferred to have seen all the bridges and tunnels in Manhattan blown up a few years ago? Wake up, these organizations are make up of Americans for the purpose of protecting Americans.
Granted, these organizations have not always been perfect in their motives and actions. However, this shortcoming has usually been a refletion of current administration policy. Who put that administration in place? We did! These organizations are a reflection of us and out own insecurities. These organizations are ultimately responsible to the same people who keep a handgun by the bed, a security system on the house, and an alarm on their car.
"We have the technology!" (Score:1)
The OSI really does that now? Awesome! As I recall, that's one highly competent organization!
Although Rudy always did have trouble keeping that adrenelazine locked up.
Is Oscar still in charge? Steve and Jamie always seemed pretty busy solving major national security problems -- I'd really hate to see them reduced to doing clearance checks on Air Force employees.
Re:High Level Security Does Note Equal Stacked Dec (Score:1)
known text attack for adobe "visual encryption" (Score:1)
Don't have the pitstop plugin? Can't be bothered to cut and paste every black box on your screen?
I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that someone who has a security clearance is a government lapdog. But it is something to consider. If many reputable academic programs refused to review the program due to the NDA, it's telling that the agency found parties who can be trusted not to spill the beans. Thus an honest and independent review may still be conducted, and the FBI can just sit on the results.
Given that carnivore is a packet sniffer, we can all make some assumptions about what it can do. The real question is what the GUI allows Special Agent Bob of the East Goatlick field office to search for. If he is restricted to filtering for user-specific routing information, then slashdotters should only have to worry about the constitutionaly of using this tool. If he can filter all your ISP's traffic for hacking and "national security related" keywords, then we should all be worried about the constitutionality of using this tool.
In the end it's not the functionality of the software in question, it's the potential for quickly and easily violating the Fourth Ammendment.
High Level Security Does Note Equal Stacked Deck (Score:5)
High-level security clearance is not an orthodoxy exam, a litmus test, a whose-side-are-you-on interrogation. These people who have NSA clearance may never have worked for the NSA, met anyone from the NSA or visited NSA facilties. Government clearances can be broad contingency certifications, just-in-case devices that cover eventualities. It's not like once you get security clearance they automatically invite you to office parties and give you keys to the building.
Was it the 100,000th Slashdot registration that was the turning point between informed community of geeks and paranoid band of idiots? Or was it the 250,000th?
Sincerely,
Mo Nickels
Re:straw man (Score:4)
The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. Carnivore might have been created to serve several puposes, but one of them is likely to act as a decoy for Echelon.
P.S. "Red herring" is probably a more apt description than "straw man".
Re:Who do you think hands out clearances??? (Score:1)
Re:High Level Security Does Note Equal Stacked Dec (Score:2)
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:1)
They would have been accused of stacking the deck if they put anybody on the team who wasn't a convicted hacker. The media and most of the Slashdot community have already judged the government guilty; I'll be surprised if I see any objective reporting on this at all.
Persecuted by doing a review? (Score:1)
Is it a stacked deck because they had to go to someone else with some sort of credentials to do it? And no, the RedHat Certified Security Dude or M.S.?.?.?. abbreviation you put after your sig doesn't count.
True, they could be looking for the rubber stamp, as another post said, but really, I don't know enough about the matter to say who they should've had look at it instead. Do you? (the "many eyes of the open source community" doesn't count)
Gee! (Score:5)
I suggest that this team consist of ordinary citizens. You know, people who are REALLY knowledgeable about security issues... plumbers, an electrician or two, that guy who sells orthopaedic shoes in the mall, a barber (yours or mine, it doesn't matter), a chiropractor, and even an aromatherapist. Oh, and let's not forget the Roswell "expert" who works at the deli, and the homeless woman who was once abducted by gray proctologists (and in a black helicopter - she does get a little confused at times!).
CERTAINLY they are more likely to have informed opinions! I mean, it is TOTALLY illogical to assume that someone who works in the security field would have any valid input. And these experts aren't real people... they are all clones, all drones of THE MAN, and we shuoldn't trust them!
Note: for those unable to tell the difference, this is neither troll or flamebait, but sarcasm.
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:2)
YES. Security clearances are not out of the question for this kind of thing. If you have information that is potentially dangerous to national security, the information is classified. Since the source code is designed to be used for the protection of national security, it is therefore classified. (Or at least what's called "Law Enforcement Sensitive.")
Lots of people have security clearances. (Note: clearances not ratings) If you are going to look at classified information, you need one. Period. This is how we prevent other nations from getting our stuff. (I'm not making a case for how WELL we may or may not do this, though. That area needs a lot of improvement.)
What did you honestly expect? A class of CS101 students from some community college get to review the source code of Carnivore for their class?
P.S. Please don't start the "e-mail gets the same protection as US Mail. The US Postal Service IS the government. If you are a conspiracy theorist, at least do it all the way...
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5)
Re:Did we expect anything better? (Score:3)
Feds: Yo, guys, check _this_ out.
MIT: We're not _that_ stupid ! We are not a rubber stamp factory, you know.... We teach people.
Feds: Mmmmkay, thank you for your _cooperation_
--
Re:Gee! (Score:1)
Don't forget Homer Simpson, too... Mmmmmm... carnivore.... meat..... (looks at slobbered-on keyboard) D'oh!
Send in the Clowns (Score:1)
"The wise man believes only in lies, trusts only himself, and learns to expect the unexpected."
-- Tales of the Unexpected
Re:Whats /REALLY/ in carnivore, and other stuff... (Score:1)
Re:Get a hobby! (Score:1)
Re:Um, duh? (Score:1)
As if the IT community has a monopoly on morality, or even a consensus of what's moral and ethical.
Re:Get a hobby! (Score:1)
Re:Now wait a minute (Score:4)
As US residents, we once had rights like due process, the right to know all evidence gathered against you, and prohibition of illegal search and seizure. It is not just reasonable, but should be required, that we know exactly how law enforcement is gathering evidence.
It is not about how to best obtain security, it is about putting our liberty back into the equation.
FBI Deception.. (Score:2)
The site is full of contradictions, Barnum Statements, and rumours.
Is it possible, or even likely, that this whole Carnivore thing is a simple misdirection? We look at the right hand while the left hand does something much sneakier. Why is this an FBI project rather than say NSA or Interpol? Something weird is happening..
Apologies for sounding like a conspiracy type..
Re:Get a hobby! (Score:1)
Indeed, I have a Top Secret clearance... (Score:2)
...and I'm as disgusted by Carnivore as any of you.
Clearances are about whether or not you can be trusted to keep a secret. Not necessarily about what your opinions are regarding wiretaps.
And just so you know -- no, the fact that I have a clearance is not itself a secret. Honestly, it's not the X-Files deal that /. readers seem to think, but that's another rant.
Moderate this up! (Score:2)
Whats /REALLY/ in carnivore, and other stuff... (Score:3)
Other features we can expect:
(1) instead of looking for email addresses in all the traffic, search for the PGP signature of the suspect.
(2) Dealing with that shit weak 56bit DES encryption that some people are still using, with an integrated hardware encryption cracking card, and when the NSA have that quantum computer they have been after, the strength of the encryption wont matter.
On topic for a moment:
this is hardly surprising, did anyone think, even for a moment that the review team would actually consist of "ordinary" people / acedemics.
That is too much of a risk for the NSA, if the true workings of carnivore get out, they see that as compromising it's effectiveness against criminals.
What I really don't understand is this:
Surely all the terrorists, hard-core child pornographers (well, Gary Glitter may tell you otherwise) and Kidnappers are using strong (and I mean strong) encryption to avert detection of their evil deeds, all who aren't are stupid criminals and deserve to be caught all that more.
But then again if we assume for a moment that it is really only the Evil People (TM) above who are using archival strength (>= 2048 bit) encryption, surely the encryption alone will be drawing the attention of the relevant law enforcement agencies.
But people, I am truly torn, I know it isn't possible to have a completely free world if we want to be free of e.g. Terrorism, but yet we all seem to want our privacy regardless.
just my £0.02.
skiy.
Ignore this too. (Score:2)
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Re:High Level Security Does Note Equal Stacked Dec (Score:2)
I take it you've been through the security clearance process and can actually speak knowledgley about this?
No? Didn't really think so.
You know when I went through the process they never once mentioned how I should think.... No they asked about drug use, affiliations with foriegn nationals, and police record. Don't remember if personal use of crypto ever came up as a topic of discussion.
Oh wait I see what you mean they don't really need to ask, they've got that brain reading machine that does it for them... Yeah, see we all know how unreliable a polly is so what they must really be doing is making you sit in a shielded room so that they can tune a brainwave reader to your specific frequency.... Yeah that must be it.
People that work at NSA/CIA/FBI are no differnt then the idiots (myself included) that post on
How do the people with security clearances allow others to control their actions?
Can they go to a baseball game?
Can they cheat on their spouse if they really want to?
I knew this one chick that worked at NSA (Air Force girl) that had her labia pierced.....
How do they force you to act in any manner that you wouldn't anyway?
Re:High Level Security Does Note Equal Stacked Dec (Score:3)
Re:Papa Smurf as an allegory for the FBI? (Score:2)
Sheesh...
------------------------------------
Rather ironic (Score:2)
~=Keelor
Who do you think hands out clearances??? (Score:2)
>analysis they want. Cleared is not always
>synonymous with lackey, brown-nose, or hypocrite.
Uh... just WHO do you think gives out security clearances in the first place? Yep... Each and EVERY person who has any kind of security clearnce has been approved of by the agency founded by J. Edgar Hoover and which makes its residence in the building that bears his name! You DON'T *get* a clearance AT ALL unless you've passed the FBI's definition of orthodoxy.
It doesn't matter who you work for or why you need a clearance. Wanna work for the CIA? FBI has to approve. Wanna be more than a toilet scrubber in the Navy? FBI has to approve. Wanna build neat airplanes for Lockheed Martin? FBI has to approve.
They do the background check/approval for ALL security clearances.
Even to be a lowly electronics tech in the Navy... the FBI has to annoint you as being sufficently orthodox. I've personal expierence on this one, as a friend of mine listed me once as a reference when getting his clearance in the Navy. Well guess which fscking three letter agency starts calling ME??? Well, they finally gave up calling after about the seventh "Fuck You ".
>I've seen engineers with xxxx clearance turn red
>in the face and scream at the very brass who pay
>their contract and asked for the clearance.
It's not "the brass" that verifys that someone is sufficently subservient. You don't HAVE to be a lapdog to "the brass". It's J. Edgar's brainchildren that you have ingraciate yourself to.
PS.
If Echelon really *IS* real, and this message ever gets back to Mister Special Fscking Agent Davidson, a hearty FUCK YOU to you once more.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Re:emmm what has been their record for public (Score:2)
as they have of driving in order to drive..
Cars and Computers are both very complex machines. The diffrence is a car lacks a user friendly interface and the computer dosn't drive off the internet into a website through a home page and into a data pool when you don't know what your doing. It all LOOKS perficly ok.
But rest assured just becouse people don't die when you do something stupid dosn't mean you can't do something stupid..
And computers aren't much harder to understand than a car..
Also failure to understand eather leads you to get ripped off... By car dealers, software companys or repair shops (of both)... the last being quite rare....
Did we expect anything better? (Score:5)
Hmmm. (Score:5)
Remind the press that almost categorically down the line every major university has declined to review carnivore, citing the FBI's NDA, amongst other things.
The thought that ought to be on the mind of every citizen ought to be "What are they hiding?" This is a government that was, at one time, by and for the people. We were supposed to have a government accessible to the common man, and where things were out in the open. Most congressional votes (And I think it should be *all*) are public - you know who your rep voted for. Who's voting for Carnivore?
--
Re:If you don't like it, leave! (Score:2)
>If you despise this country
Who said ANYTHING about desppising the United States? Not me. The Unites States != the federal bureau of investigation, despite what the uber-conservative control freaks amongst you might think.
I'm actually very fond of America as a whole, but that does NOT make me a mindless lackey who's going to toady to the fsckin FBI.
Have you ever READ anything about the history of the FBI beyond what they put out themselves??? I HAVE! It's a sordid affair replete with blackmail, corruption, murder, and persecution of anyone who doesn't fit the FBI's definition of proper orthodoxy... that includes: civil rights leaders, labor activists, unpopular (to the FBI) religions, hollywood types that lean a little too far to the left for the FBI's taste, hell... ANYONE who leans a little too far left for their tastes, homosexuals (ironic, given Hoover's own eh... extracurricular activities), unpopular (with the FBI or the president) journalists, peace activists, the list goes on and on.
I wouldn't trust this bunch of government-sanctioned hired thugs so far as I could spit a rat.
Hell, even if I were to totally ignore the lessons of history, an such an Orwellian intrusion on my privacy as carnivore would be enough, by itself, to convince me not to trust the MF_ers.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
emmm what has been their record for public (Score:3)
At the very least taking that embarrasing hole out ?
Secondly.. who picked these guys ? The spooks themselves ? If they're already in bed with the FBI or other Super Secret Agency.. why would they be objective ?
RE:Clearance != Lackey (Score:2)
I'll tell you right now that I _USED_ to have a "Secret" clearance. It's no big deal, in fact, I worked for a very low level contractor, and more than 50% of the programmers and techs had clearance, JUST IN CASE. Most of use never needed it, but there was always a chance we would have to be sent to a military base, and it's a lot easier to walk around with a guard.
I'll tell you that we would tell the bosses what we thought. I'd be a lot more worried about some of the other qualifications that are a LOT harder to get (tenure etc)
Re:Who do you think hands out clearances??? (Score:2)
Re:Indeed, I have a Top Secret clearance... (Score:2)
And legality is all that's being discussed. Calm down; I'm no security risk.
My point in writing is not to show off nor to make the OSI nervous. It's to point out the fallacy that most of /. has; that somehow as soon as you get a clearance, you're somehow one of Them, opposed to all matters of privacy.
I'll return to the Hanger now; it's my week to feed the space aliens.
Re:The Law People (Score:5)
"In April of 1996 the United States Institute for Peace conducted a conference on "Virtual Diplomacy," exploring the interaction between new information technologies and international conflict management. During the conference many speakers observed that information technology threatens traditional political institutions. One panel explored the possibility that information technology threatens sovereignty itself.
Ordinary citizens as well as diplomats have instantaneous access to information about world events as they occur--through CNN sooner than through the CIA. Ordinary citizens interested in environmental protection or human rights can reach out and touch counterparts in other countries through the Internet, bypassing international treaty negotiators appointed by their own governments.
Overlapping revolutions in information technology and the convergence of communications, broadcast and data technologies into a single digital network of networks typified by the Internet, have undermined old political institutions and simultaneously made new international institutions likely because they make it feasible to reach across geographic political boundaries. [FN1]"
I for one don't understand why this is a problem.
The idea that the governments of the world are supposed to have some kind of priviliged existence above that of their citizens is incorrect.
Institutions exist because they are needed. They have no inherent right to exist beyond that. If an institution has something to fear from the empowerment of the people, then that institution is not working in the best interests of the people and should be reformed or abolished.
The internet does not threaten the sovereignty of any government whose power is truly derived from the consent of the governed. Government which works for the people and which is ultimately directed by the people can only benefit from technology which allows better communication and access to information.
Unfortunately much of the policy created by the US government is detrimental to the rights of its citizens and is therefore dependent upon their ignorance. The ability of spin doctors and politicians to paint a pretty picture on top of an ugly deed or policy depends on our being unaware of the true facts of the matter. The more we know, the less they can lie to us and get away with it.
I can only imagine that the situation is worse in other parts of the world where lies, corruption and oppression are the very foundation upon which the government sits. A government such as this has a great deal to fear from the internet. Take China for example. The leaders of its communist party should be very, very afraid right now. Its only a matter of time before the foundation of their power crubles. It may take decades but the beginning of the end for them is here now.
In short the internet worries the powers that be because it is what will replace them with the powers that will be.
"I tip my hat to the new constitution,
take a bow for the new revolution,
smile and grin at the changes all around.
Pick up my guitar and play,
just like yesterday.
And I get on my knees and pray,
we don't get fooled again."
Lee Reynolds
Re:Need to Know? Breathtaking competence here. (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:2)
And where have most people, nay, all who have clearnace worked? Well.. to have government security clearance, you have to have worked for them..
chances are YOU don't have to worry (Score:2)
Re:Who do you think hands out clearances??? (Score:2)
Now wait a minute (Score:5)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Hey, everything I'm doing is legal. It's just all steganographically encoded in slashdot from about 8 accounts. That's needed, because the data loss is pretty high, but that's the price you pay for security these days.
I'm not afraid to mention that here because I'm not saying which 8 accounts, but they just post random gibberish-looking posts which have a tendency to get modded up for no reason. Oh, and some articles, too, but not that many people like the articles. Gotta get "post-Columbine" out of my wordlist before more people complain.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Hilarious, if not so sad (Score:4)
"On Tuesday, the Justice Department placed the 51-page PDF file online, with project information such as names, phone numbers, and government security clearances erased with thick black bars.
But it turns out that the information wasn't removed after all. Anyone with Adobe-supplied software -- or a text editor and a little bit of time -- can view the unaltered document.
It's uncertain whether the irony of public disclosure of personal information, by the very people who are in the midst of claiming they can be trusted to protect it, was lost on Justice Department officials, because they declined to comment on Wednesday. "
No further comment needed. A sarcastic remark is left as an exercise for the reader...
________________
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4)
--
The old "masked out" PDF trick... (Score:2)
If they even can't get a PDF secure, how can we trust them with Carnivore?
W
-------------------
Clever Censorship (Score:3)
Oh, how clever. They poorly blacked out the name of an author but left the name of his book [barnesandnoble.com].
Although I imagine "pdftotext" would also have done interesting things to the blackout...
Re:Alternative Choice (Score:2)
If you don't think that university types have grants from the US Government (probably a lot of DOD work), you are crazy.
Re:More reason to NOT trust the cops (Score:2)
I'm not a criminal, at least as far as I know. Who knows what kooky law I might unwittingly be breaking just by breathing. But lets assume that I'm truly not breaking any laws at all in any way. I'd still be damned nervous if I had to deal with the police on anything. The reason is that I don't think they care about guilt or innocence. In fact I seriously suspect they consider the public at large as one huge group of criminals.
The police are organized as a military outfit. As such they are taught the idea of "Us" and "Them." They are taught that there is an enemy to be fought and destroyed. What happens when a cop trained like this locks his sights onto an innocent person? It would be far better to train and organize the police to serve and protect the public according to their motto instead of establishing them as a standing army among our citizens.
It is a very good thing that we are arming ourselves. I'm armed and I'd encourage everyone else to be armed as well. The increase in gun ownership over the past few years is what has led to the consistent fall in the rate of violent crime over the same period. Contrary to "liberal" propaganda, guns don't cause violence, they prevent it. A gun in the hand of an honest person who posesses it for defense and protection is one of the best deterrents against violent crime I know. That same person unarmed is just someone waiting to be victimized. Banning guns only takes them out of the hands of people such as this. It does nothing to take them out of the hands of those who are not honest and who would use guns to commit crimes.
What I think is particularly amusing is the idea that the police are going to protect us from violent crime. If the police just happen to be there before the crime can occur, and they notice it as it begins, then yes they can be a good protection in that case. But usually the police are not there and it takes them a significant ammount of time to come once called, which is usually after the crime has already been committed. Because of this the police mostly act as armed historians, taking statements and making reports of what happened before they ever got there. How are they supposed to protect anyone in that capacity? They can't. In fact the idea of the police does far more to deter crime than the actual police do. Then of course you must consider what would happen if the only people who were armed were the criminal element and the police. The rest of us would quickly get caught in the middle as the distinction between the two blurred. If police departments are corrupt right now, imagine how bad they would be with even more power over the population?
Anyway, I'm not saying anything that others before me have not expressed more eloquently. Freedom depends upon the ability of the free to protect that freedom. Without guns our ability to do that is severely weakened.
Lee Reynolds
You've proven the point! (Score:2)
Did Cryptome.org violate DMCA? (Score:3)
W
-------------------
That damned CueCat! (Score:2)
Um, duh? (Score:2)
What kills me is that people are really pissed about this. It's the *job* of the security agencies to do this. It isn't right, but it is what they do.
Oh, and, how many of you out there are working for corportations that monitor email/voice traffic? Better yet, how many of *us* are making this possible by doing our jobs? We whine about it here, but gladly take the checks that are doled out.
Of course, having all the IT people in the world get together, to force morality on the corportate world wouldn't work, but I'd be amused to see it tried. So, when do we plan to shut down every network and server in the US in protest?