Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Keyloggers Now Classified Technology 212

Posted by michael from the trust-us-we're-the-government dept.
general_re writes: "The New York Times (free reg required blah blah blah) is reporting that the Department of Justice is still refusing to turn over details of how the keystroke loggers used against Nicky Scarfo worked, claiming that revealing how it works "would render it useless in future investigations" as well as claiming that it is classified information. Nevermind that this also prevents his lawyers from evaluating or attacking the credibility or accuracy of the evidence arrayed against him. One interesting question raised is whether it's always been classified, or if they're retroactively classifying it in order to avoid revealing how they work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Keyloggers Now Classified Technology More

Keyloggers Now Classified Technology

Comments Filter:

  • welcome (Score:2, Insightful)

    by coloneyb ( 168242 )
    Comrades, welcome to the CCCUSA.
    Big Brother is watching.
    We must continue to stand up for ourselves or the government is really gonna run us over with all this BS

    • Re:welcome (Score:2, Redundant)

      by CoderDevo ( 30602 )
      First come the Scientists to create the technology.
      Then come the Entrepreneurs to think of new products.
      Then come the Investors to pay to build the products.
      Then come the Marketeers to feed us the products.
      Then come the Lawyers to protect the Investors.
      Then come the Politicians to protect the Lawyers.
      Finally comes the Laws to protect us from the technology.

      Crazy.
    • In Animal House it was a joke. For the feds it's becoming a habit. This is an outrage -- but I don't think it will hold up in court. When you present evidence like this, you have to establish its reliability. And "Trust US' isn't good enough.

    • Re:welcome (Score:3, Funny)

      by NonSequor ( 230139 )
      Big Brother is watching.


      No, you have it backwards. People are watching Big Brother.

    • Talkl about Soviet Russia!

      "We have this secret evidence against, and you must trust us to tell you that you are guilty of crimes that violate these secret laws. If you knew what these laws were, we would have to shoot you.

      [snort]

      "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." -FDR

      Sounds like we made it.

      We won the war against fascism, and communism, (WWII, Cold War, etc) only to be left with a communistic fascism called a corporate democracy. It is a communism of fascistic corporate interests.

      Time to blow the planet while there is still a chance.

      - - -
      Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
      is a news site based on Slash Code
      "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
      - - -

  • Before we know it, there could be keyloggers for everyone to download!
    • Before we know it, there could be keyloggers for everyone to download!

      Maybe there already is ... maybe they're inserting it into programs people commonly use ... if gator can get spyware onto 100 million computers, why cant the CIA?

    • No need to download. It's called Microsoft Windows and the infamous NSA implanted key.

      Just think how bad it would hurt Microsoft if it got out that they have been planting this for years into Windows. That's what the government is worried about, not that they have a program that captures keystrokes.
      • But is this not just another urban legend? Even if MS would take such a risk to cooperate with NSA and implement such a key, why in the world call it something with "NSA", cause I have heard about this before, and they suspected it was a key for NSA cause of the name?
        • Same reason they forgot to remove the debugging symbols in that service pack for nt. Knowing this, someone also determined that it was present in 98, 98sr, NT3.51, and NT4.0 (I think). This was before 2000, me. (may have been on /.)

  • Abuse of power (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sourcehunter ( 233036 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @12:32PM (#2216294) Homepage
    I'm sorry, I don't care WHAT kind of technology you use against a criminal to gather evidence, it should be open to scrutiny.

    I believe the same to be true of the Carnivore system, even though I readily defend its use as legitimate [slashdot.org].

    What if they classified the tape and tape recorder they used to tape a conversation - no one would be able to check the tape to see if it was or could have been altered!

    • Re:Abuse of power (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JCCyC ( 179760 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @01:35PM (#2216460) Journal
      Bingo. If this sticks, nobody is safe. Imagine: they can type any kind of fake e-mail, and then say it was keylogged thru their "classified technology".

      "Who'll be today's suckers, Mr. Director?"
      "Let's make Ralph Nader a pedophile, Noam Chomsky a crack dealer and David Touretzky... lessee... a terrorist from Hamas. No, better, Tim McVeigh's secret accomplice!"
  • if they refuse to disclose their method for gathering their evidence, it should be declared inadmissible.
    But then again, IANAL.
    • That seems to be a common response by defense attorneys in cases like this; demand classified information, then when it's not provided get the charges reduced or dismissed. Fortunately judges have learned that "just trust us" from US intelligence agencies isn't a valid basis to take someone's rights away.

  • To future NYT link posters... (Score:5, Informative)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <<slashdot> <at> <keirstead.org>> on Saturday August 25, 2001 @12:34PM (#2216301)

    Just replace the "www" in the link with "archive".

    For this link, it is [nytimes.com]
    http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/25/technology /2 5CODE.html.

    It
    a) Saves all the "No reg link" posts, and
    b) Saves all the "Anonymous login" posts, and
    c) just makes the world a better place in general.

    Thanks!

    • someone posted this about a year ago:
      login: slashdot2000
      pass: slashdot2000
      let it save the cookie and never look back
    • Or you could actually register yourselves at NYTimes. Then you are supporting this newspaper which provides well written content for us. I suppose their website ad revenue is based on page views by unique users.
    • It occurs to me that as popular as the "archive" links are, it is hard to believe that no one has yet submitted an "archive" link with a story. I would speculate that the Slashdot editors deliberately remove these links as to not anger the NY Times.
      • It's not that hard to believe - I submitted the story and just used the straight nytimes.com link.

        Yes, I know about the partners.nytimes.com and archive.nytimes.com links. Yes, it occurred to me to use them about 30 seconds after submitting the story. Yes, I am a moron.

        Thank you.
    • Just replace the "www" in the link with "archive".

      DON'T DO THIS! This is illegal due to the DMCS and would amount to circumvention of a copyprotection system!
  • "The technology behind the key logger, which was developed by the F.B.I. but is similar to readily available commercial products..."

    It sounds like the FBI has built upon existing key logging technology. I imagine those are patented, right? So distribute that information. If it's similar enough, then the same methods to defeat it would work against the FBI's stuff. This what the FBI is claminig they are trying to avoid by releasing details.

    Of course, this information should only be used to prevent unscrupulous business competitors from using key logging against you ;-). Don't use it to cover up a crime, like reading and encrypted e-book.

  • technology ? If the DoJ won't share, I think "we the people" should make every effort to see that any knowledge we have is made available. Someone had to write this for them.
    • Keyloggers have been around for quite some time. Check out www.keyghost.com for an example. It's really not that complicated.

      Of course then there are software keyloggers as well, but I'm sure everyone here has heard of them or can imagine how they'd work.
      • > Check out www.keyghost.com for an example.

        Ooh! Ooh! A chance to troll for site traffic :-)!

        My review of the Keyghost II Professional is here [dansdata.com]. It links to my older review of their Security Keyboard, which has a hardware logger built in.

        They're a bit expensive, but they're very nifty gadgets, if you feel like being Big Brother for a change.

  • Enlighten me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Modus Nonsens ( 461848 )
    What does your constitution say about this? What are they allowed to do to you in this sense?

    Furthermore I think they *must* release their technology that they used, to give him a fair chance. Or am I wrong here?

    • Re:Enlighten me (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bnenning ( 58349 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @01:13PM (#2216411)
      You're assuming that what the Constitution says has any relevance toward what the government does, which has not been the case for many decades. The Constitution clearly requires that an accused person be able to confront his accusers, which means that no secret evidence is permitted. It also prevents abridging freedom of speech or punishing people who have not been charged or convicted of a crime, but that didn't stop them from passing the CDA, DMCA, and asset forfeiture. The government no longer recognizes any limit on its power, and the voters have let them get away with it.
      • So if the constitution isn't followed or respected, what can the people do? Can they do anything at all? Do they want to?

        • They can elect politicians that won't wipe their ass with their Consitution. As soon as any appear.

          That's about it, I'm afraid. The Supreme Court will, in theory, correct abuses of the Constitution. But the problem is they don't initiate actions on their own, they only respond to challenges launched by others. There really should be a mechanism for automatically reviewing new legislation for Constitutional affronts, but there isn't. The closest thing we have is citizen's groups like the ACLU or NRA, and they don't offer anything close to 100% coverage of new legislation.

          So the Constitution is broken over time in various ways until you get the situation like you have today, where some parts of the constution (like the tenth amendment) might as well not even exist.

          • I see the problem there...
            But in my own little world, the constitution of a country is the highest of laws and if any other laws go against it, the constitution is the one to follow. But as you say, someone has to watch them all the time.
          • There really should be a mechanism for automatically reviewing new legislation for Constitutional affronts, but there isn't.

            As you alluded to, there are in fact groups that do it. Think about CDA or COPA. Those haven't seen the light of day because public interest groups got involved and had restraining orders put down before the laws became effective.
        • what can the people do?

          The second amendment hasn't been completely taken away. Yet. Use it before it's too late.
      • The Constitution doesn't give the FBI any authority to create "Classified Information". That doesn't mean they haven't found some weasel words to authorize themselves to do so anyway, but there's nothing specific.
      • Most of the issues here are with rules of evidence, due process, and right to challenge your accuser in court; the Constitution isn't very detailed on these, particularly about issues of high technology.
      • The Exclusionary Rule, from the 1960s, says that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissable in court. The year before it was promulgated, the New York City police department didn't bother getting any search warrants - they'd just search, and if they did so illegally, too bad, they got the evidence anyway. The year after that, they got warrants (well, most of the time...)
      • The big interesting Constitutional issue here is that the Feds had a search warrant, which could fetch them a bunch of encrypted bits, but not a wiretap warrant, and what they did sounds extremely like wiretapping to me. Wiretap warrants require much more procedure than simple search warrants, and are mainly a creation of telephone regulatory law that's not clearly applicable here, since the Consitutional justification for telephone wiretaps is that the phone company is outside your house.
      • The accused computer had PGP, and the interesting messages or disk sections were encrypted with PGP. That means that if you have the keyring file (which usually lives on the disk) and passphrase (the important secret part), you can verify that the encrypted bits correspond to the decrypted bits. The usual rules of evidence for computer searches (which are rapidly evolving) apply here - were the files really written by the accused, or were they planted, or was there another person using the machine, etc.
      • If they'd found the passphrase on a yellow sticky note by the computer, there'd be no issue here. If they'd paid a snitch to give it to them, there'd be no issue either. If they'd tortured the accused without his lawyer present, there'd also be no issue - the decrypted material would pretty clearly be inadmissible. If they'd had a wiretap warrant, it would have been potentially interesting Constitutionally, but the police would almost certainly win. Instead, they found the somewhat interesting midpoint, because they pretty clearly cheated, but didn't cheat really badly.
      • In the UK, this evidence would probably be admissible, or at least the Home Office would try extremely hard to make it so.

  • Wiretapping Function? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lysurgon ( 126252 ) <joshk@@@outlandishjosh...com> on Saturday August 25, 2001 @12:38PM (#2216318) Homepage Journal
    The innaresting thing to me is that the defense is trying to play the "keylogger = wiretap" card, and therefore invalidate the evidence because it wasn't acquired under the corrent warrent.

    Now, why would the Feds not want to disclose the mechanism of their keylogger? Either it's typical spook selfishness OR they think that doing so would strengthen the defense's argument. I havn't looked at the actual details of the argument the defense is making, so it's hard to tell if this is part of the motivation for the "it's classified" song and dance.

    On the one hand, perhaphs they just don't want people knowing how the FBI keylogger works as opposed to all the others. Maybe because, shame shame, it's the same as the market variety.

    But maybe it interfaces automagically with some external snooping device. That would be both something they'd rather not let people know about AND something that would give the defense the winning argument in the court case.

    (start carnivore paranoia ranting... now)

    • "Either it's typical spook selfishness OR they think that doing so would strengthen the defense's argument."

      Personally, I think by not releasing the information in and of itself helps the defense. Any lawyer worth the money he's being paid should be able to use the fact that, if the jury can't understand how the device works, they can't be convinced that it was used correctly. Or that the information was really gathered at all. "Reasonable doubt" and all that.

      Keeping the keyloggers a black box pretty much gives them all the validity of a psychic. The only way a juror would buy that line is if they believed whatever the G-men said. And unless the defense attourney was a complete moron during juror selection...

    • Now, why would the Feds not want to disclose the mechanism of their keylogger? Either it's typical spook selfishness OR they think that doing so would strengthen the defense's argument. I havn't looked at the actual details of the argument the defense is making, so it's hard to tell if this is part of the motivation for the "it's classified" song and dance.

      Defense: "Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you got a warrant to gather this information or that the keylogging was otherwise not an unreasonable search and seizure."

      Feds: "Umm..... uh...."

      Defense: "Motion to reject this evidence."

      Perhaps they learned their lesson from the Sklyarov debacle and are trying to get a judge to rule the "wiretapped" evidence inadmissible.

    • If it's ruled as inadmissible (sp?) then the Gov has no case. Everything they have came from what they got via that tap. If tap == illegal, evidence acquired via tap == inadmissible.
  • I don't get it. What about programs like Last Resort? [working.com] Are they classified now?

  • Information is not classified after it has been born unclassified. It must be born classified as part of a classified project.

    I also doubt the judge possesses the clearance required to evaluate it himself, so no one may be able to evaluate it's accuracy.


    • I also doubt the judge possesses the clearance required to evaluate it himself, so no one may be able to evaluate it's accuracy.

      The FBI won't be able to pull a "you're not cleared for that" on a federal judge. If he asks for it, they either give it to him, drop the charges, or try to appeal to a higher court.

    • Re:Classified? (Score:2, Informative)

      by dragons_flight ( 515217 )
      Things don't have to be born classified, per se. What it really takes is a guy in a government office deciding that it ought to be classified and the understanding that the info has never been made publicly available.

      With science and technology projects in government most things start out with the ubiquitious "Protect as Restricted Data" designation, which means it's not important enough to guard or lock up but don't go talking about it or publishing to the public. Later on someone comes along and decides that the project or whatever has becomes more important (i.e. it actally works and is useful), and then bumps the security classification up.

      The trick here is that almost nothing starts out truly unclassified unless intentionally designated so (for example some pure research efforts).

      Sooner or later they have to show someone the specs, if not this judge then a higher judiciary, and there are judges with exceptional clearance (such as those that approve NSA snooping). I think the bigger concern is whether he has the technical savvy to interpret the information he is given accurately.
    • There was a story on Slashdot a couple of weeks ago that didn't show up on the main page about an MIT scientist getting screwed over by the DoD 'cause he published something about one of their reports which they then proceeded to retroactively declare classified.

      The story is under the "censorship" topic, for which there doesn't seem to be a Slashbox. In other words Slashdot published it but came as close to hiding it as possible. Ironic, huh?

  • Evidence would not be admissable in UK courts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by new500 ( 128819 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @12:57PM (#2216369) Journal

    . . .

    Must make this short (as there's a god long debate behind what follows) but this would make inadmissable any collected evidence in a UK court.

    This would be because there is then no person or other body of evidence available to question regards veracity.

    Evidence rules here very tough, and the case would be almost immediately thrown out.

    This is tantamount to claiming the Ivisible Man as witness and the prosecutor or plaintiff claiming they cannot bring him for cross examination because they cannot find him.

    The anaology is the same, if something cannot be shown to court, it may not bear witness.

    This is the first basic rule of civilisation and law over hearsay, rumour and superstition.

    • As I understand the situation, they used the logger to get passwords to decrypt data. The veracity of the encrypted data, as I understand it, is not the question here. Assuming the passwords decrypted the data, the only question is the legality of collecting the passwords.

      Thus, the question of 'bearing witness' it moot, as it's not using the correctness of the passwords as evidence, but the decrypted data. I suppose you could argue that the passwords are wrong and the fact that the decrypted data corresponds to English text is pure coincidence, but that's is, to say the least, not a strong argument.
    • Things are a little different here. In the article, they say that the keylogger was just used to find the key for the encryption that the gangster was using. The actual key isn't really evidence -- whatever they decrypted is. Now; if the FBI can go into my house, and they have a search warrant, then they can open my safe. The method they use to find the combination of my safe isn't very important. Just as long as the decryption was legally done, and the data wasn't modified in order to incriminate the suspect, I don't see a problem here.
      • "Now; if the FBI can go into my house, and they have a search warrant, then they can open my safe. The method they use to find the combination of my safe isn't very important."

        Yes, they can go into your house with a proper search warrent. and, the method they use to find the combination to your safe is important. for example, if you tell you friend over the phone, and they dont have a wiretapping warrent, that's an illegal way to open the safe. or, for example..if they put a gun to your head and told you to open your safe. that would be illegal too. however the 1st one is closer to what was done here.

    • OTOH in the UK they wouldn't have needed a keylogger to get the key. They can demand your PGP passphrase (the computer was seized legally, so that's not the issue) and throw you in jail if you don't divulge it. It's up to the accused to prove that he doesn't know or has forgotten it, and if he can't prove that then he can be imprisoned for failing to cooperate.

    • Hmm, this makes the UK law look good, until you consider that the cabinet just has to sign a D list and the suspect is up the swannee. Just look at the Iran supergun affair. The cabinet was ready to sell an honest businessman's life & reputation down the Swanee, and only Michael Hesseltine saved him from going to jail, because the other corrupt scumbags in the cabinet REFUSED to release evidence that proved he was working in full cooperation with the government and not trying to smuggle arms to Iran.

      Take your glorious British laws and your RIP bill and shove them, instead of waving them around here.
    • I hate to tell you this - but there is a long history in the UK of judges saying "this evidence was illegally gathered; I expect disiplinary action against the officers concerned, but as your case relies on it I won't throw it out...."

  • yeah yeah (Score:1, Redundant)

    by labratuk ( 204918 )
    Heres the article, because i cant stand those bloody reg sites. (yeah yeah karma whore)


    Invoking a national security law normally used in highly publicized espionage cases, the Justice Department told a federal judge on Thursday that it would not publicly reveal the details of the "key logger" system used to gather evidence in the gambling and loansharking trial of Nicodemo S. Scarfo Jr.


    The technology behind the key logger, which was developed by the F.B.I. but is similar to readily available commercial products, has become a central issue in the case against Mr. Scarfo. But, privacy experts say, the technology is also a new disturbance to the delicate balance between the privacy rights of citizens and the growing power of technology to help government invade privacy.


    In the Scarfo case, F.B.I. agents installed the monitoring technology, which records keystrokes, on Mr. Scarfo's personal computer under a court-authorized search warrant. Mr. Scarfo's lawyers have argued that the technology resembles a wiretap, and that using the logger without going through the relatively stringent requirements of a full wiretap order may have violated Mr. Scarfo's constitutional rights. But they say that they cannot know for sure unless they know how the logger works.


    Judge Nicholas H. Politan of the United States District Court in Newark agreed with Mr. Scarfo's lawyers and on Aug. 7 ordered the government to produce further information about the technology by Aug. 31. The judge also ruled that the government could file a memorandum before then as to why it could not comply. It was that memorandum that was filed on Thursday.



    Lawyers directly involved in both sides of the case are under an order not to discuss it, and could not comment.

    The government has previously argued that the technology is classified, but until the new filings, it had not officially invoked the Classified Information Procedure Act, which is normally used to prevent criminal defendants like Robert P. Hanssen, the accused spy, from revealing government secrets in open court.


    Ronald D. Wigler, an assistant United States attorney, said in court filings on Thursday that the government was seeking to invoke the act in the Scarfo case. The government said it had not withheld any information from Mr. Scarfo that might be helpful in his attempts to get the evidence gathered by the key-logger system rejected.


    Revealing the inner workings of the technology, Mr. Wigler has argued, would render it useless in future investigations. He offered instead to provide an "unclassified summary statement" that could be reviewed by Mr. Scarfo's lawyers and "a more complete description" of the technology for the judge's eyes only.


    Mr. Scarfo is the son of the imprisoned mob boss Nicodemo S. (Little Nicky) Scarfo Sr. The key logger captured the password that the younger Mr. Scarfo is accused of having used with a popular encryption program to scramble and unscramble records of gambling and loansharking operations.

    Mark Rasch, a former Justice Department lawyer who was involved in several cases using the Classified Information Procedures Act, said that the government's use of the law was surprising.


    "This is using an elephant gun to swat a fly," he said.


    He also said the government's action raised more questions than it answered. Under the law, for example, the government is required to show that it classified the technology in question properly, and did so before it was used in the investigation. "Simply saying `it's classified' is not enough," he said. The government has not yet publicly offered the proof that Mr. Rasch described.


    Mr. Rasch, who has consulted with civil liberties groups that are following the case, said that absent such proof, it could be argued that the government had invoked the law as a legal maneuver. If the government classified the technology after the fact, he said: "That would be disingenuous. That would be unconscionable."


    David Sobel, the general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a policy and advocacy group in Washington, said, "The government elected to use this technique, and should not now attempt to hide its details under the guise of national security."


    He added: "It raises very basic questions of accountability. The suggestion that the use of high-tech law enforcement investigative techniques should result in a departure from our tradition of open judicial proceedings is very troubling."

  • One interesting question raised is whether it's always been classified, or if they're retroactively classifying it in order to avoid revealing how they work.
    At least according to the article, the technology must be classified before the filing in order for them to invoke the act. To wit:
    He [Mark Rasch, a former DoJ lawyer] also said the government's action raised more questions than it answered. Under the law, for example, the government is required to show that it classified the technology in question properly, and did so before it was used in the investigation. "Simply saying `it's classified' is not enough," he said. The government has not yet publicly offered the proof that Mr. Rasch described.

    Presumably, at least, the "classified the technology in question properly" is to ensure that there's actually something that deserves real protection, not just a lame attempt to keep it unaccountable and unquestionable under the mantle of National Security. It also appears to be pretty clear that the classification has to predate the claims against it. If they're trying to classify it retroactively to avoid accountability, their attempt is likely to blow up in their face.

  • Was there a keylogger? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zyklone ( 8959 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @01:06PM (#2216392) Homepage
    Was there a keylogger to begin with?
    Perhaps they just handed over the encrypted data to the NSA who promptly cracked it. Now, how do you use this in court without revealing that it was NSAs monster cracker that did all the work.

    You invent a keylogger!
    • Now, how do you use this in court without revealing that it was NSAs monster cracker that did all the work.

      By never saying it was the NSA's that did it. If this were the case, then I'd have to expect that they'd sooner say it was their own systems that cracked it than come up with a red herring keylogger that hasn't the stump of an evidenciary leg to stand on.

      Of course, when you and I use keyloggers, they're "technical violations of wiretap law". When it's the feds, all that's needed is a search warrant.
    • Are you sure it was the NSA?

      Perhaps that's the real purpose behind the SETI@home project?
    • Perhaps they just handed over the encrypted data to the NSA who promptly cracked it. Now, how do you use this in court without revealing that it was NSAs monster cracker that did all the work.

      That actually isn't too outlandish. If you recall, during WWII the allies occasionally chose to let soldiers and civilians die rather than reveal that they could read the German's codes (and new where the next attack/bombing was coming).

      When the allies had information from decrypted information that revealed the location of ships, they would always send a spotter plane over the ships before attacking to give the German's a plausible explanation for the allies knowing the ships' location.

      Properly used and implemented PGP is uncrackable by brute force. Regardless of the size of the NSA's monster cracker they couldn't brute force PGP unless they have some secret knowledge. An as yet unknown (to us) flaw in PGP, or an advance in mathematics that allows for fast factoring of large numbers is something that I expect the NSA would readily kill people to keep secret.

      As soon as knowledge of a secret like that got out, people would stop using PGP (or whatever), and the secret would become worthless.

  • Kyllo v. United States? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @01:07PM (#2216394) Journal
    I have a feeling that the Supreme Court may not look upon this too favorably. In Kyllo v. US, the court ruled that use of a thermal imaging device to detect IR radiation (evidence of indoor marijuana cultivation) leaking from an apartment constituted a search, and thus required a warrant.

    The standard the court promulgated is as follows: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presump-tively unreasonable without a warrant.

    The slip opinion (99-8508) is available in pdf format [supremecourtus.gov]

    Although the government did have a warrent to search thus supects home in this case, they did not have permission to wiretap. Since the bug could concievably be used to wiretap, the government has the responsibility to provide evidence that the device did not go beyond the scope of the existing warrant.

    Kyllo suggests that, since the device's capabilities are secret, such a device is presumptively not in public use, and requires the most expansive of warrents for legal use. Since the feds did not have a wiretap warrent, and such a device could be used for such activity, the placement of the device is illegal. (IANAL)

  • Don't feel like register at NYT

    So I guess this Scarfo was working with the mafia, am I correct? what did he do? Did he commit crimes that justify these methods of eavesdropping? I mean, they are using hidden microphones and cameras and stuff all the time, do they not? When they are presenting evidence gathered with the help from microphones or cameras, it is automatically known for everyone how it works. Does that have to mean that every other method is explained? I mean it's not like they are presenting blueprints and schematics on how the cameras works, right? It should be sufficient that everyone knows that a camera was used. So do they really have to present info on how the keylogger works then? The question I have is if whether the law is saying anything about cameras and microphones specifically, or if eavesdropping in general is described in the law? If it is specifically described, then I doubt that they describe keyloggers. And if they aren't included in the laws, then are they legal to use or are they not, in an investigation?
  • It appears that the United States Government has taken to hiring all those former East-Germans who worked for the Stasi, the bureau of state security. World over, they were known as the very epitome of state surveillance of their own citizenry. It now seems as though the FBI has decided to usurp that lofty position, and become the preeminant repository of every sneak, thief, spy, and eavesdropper that they can find.

    In the words of Gore Vidal (not usually one of my favorite people), "Now that the Great Red Menace is gone, the government can now turn its attention to the real enemy, which is now, and always has been, the people."

    Welcome, UStasi.

  • Even though what Scarfo was doing was wrong, what the government did was wrong, too. Like everyone's mom said "two wrongs don't make a right".

    I guess the government no longer needs search warrants, to invade online privacy. Even though it's a violation of someone's property.

    I'd wish they'd see that with the DMCA. They're so quick to defend intellectual property, but the average citizen's property is fair game.
  • Everyone get down, everyone dance, big brother is watching.
  • This was a major investigation of the son of a major crime boss. The father is in prison, and the son seems to have taken over, but getting proof is hard. The FBI could have gotten a proper court order for a full wiretap without any trouble. That they didn't do so is an FBI screwup, in what was previously reported as a very successful investigation. This is more a bureaucratic error than heavy-handedness.

    Still, it reflects a general opinion within the FBI that they should be able to tap computer-related information without a full wiretap order. There are two kinds of information gathering here - a wiretap order, which allows interception of content, and a "pen register" order, which allows collection of data about who someone called by phone. The problem is that the FBI has been trying to expand what can be collected with a "pen register" order to cover almost everything that doesn't go through a microphone. The FBI position has been that pager messages, dialed digits, text messages, cellular location, etc. should be easily available to law enforcement. Or, "all the new stuff belongs to us".

  • What they probably did was go to 2600.com, get a kelogger, put their name and copyright on it and patented it (pencil whipped it) thru the USPTO and will claim that if they did let anyone "see" what they used it would be a violation of the UCITA/DMCA/MPAA/RIAA/Because I said so laws.

    Moose.

    I thought "flamebait" was just jailbait with red hair.

  • I don't care how I know,

    I just know that she must be a
    WITCH!
    • Well, it stands to reason that if she were a witch, she would obviously be made out of wood (after all, you burn witches at the stake, and you also burn wood). Since wood floats in water, and ducks also float in water, all you have to do to confirm whether she is indeed a witch is to get a scale, and compare her weight to that of a duck.
      • CROWD
        A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
        VILLAGER #1
        We have found a witch. May we burn her?
        CROWD
        Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
        BEDEVERE
        How do you know she is a witch?
        VILLAGER #2
        She looks like one.
        CROWD
        Right! Yeah! Yeah!
        BEDEVERE
        Bring her forward.
        WITCH
        I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
        BEDEVERE
        Uh, but you are dressed as one.
        WITCH
        They dressed me up like this.
        CROWD
        Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
        WITCH
        And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
        BEDEVERE
        Well?
        VILLAGER #1
        Well, we did do the nose.
        BEDEVERE
        The nose?
        VILLAGER #1
        And the hat, but she is a witch!
        VILLAGER #2
        Yeah!
        CROWD
        We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
        BEDEVERE
        Did you dress her up like this?
        VILLAGER #1
        No!
        VILLAGERS #2 and #3
        No. No.
        VILLAGER #2
        No.
        VILLAGER #1
        No.
        VILLAGERS #2 and #3
        No.
        VILLAGER #1
        Yes.
        VILLAGER #2
        Yes.
        VILLAGER #1
        Yes. Yeah, a bit.
        VILLAGER #3
        A bit.
        VILLAGERS #1 and #2
        A bit.
        VILLAGER #3
        A bit.
        VILLAGER #1
        She has got a wart.
        RANDOM
        [cough]
        BEDEVERE
        What makes you think she is a witch?
        VILLAGER #3
        Well, she turned me into a newt.
        BEDEVERE
        A newt?
        VILLAGER #3
        I got better.
        VILLAGER #2
        Burn her anyway!
        VILLAGER #1
        Burn!
        CROWD
        Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
        BEDEVERE
        Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
        VILLAGER #1
        Are there?
        VILLAGER #2
        Ah?
        VILLAGER #1
        What are they?
        CROWD
        Tell us! Tell us!...
        BEDEVERE
        Tell me. What do you do with witches?
        VILLAGER #2
        Burn!
        VILLAGER #1
        Burn!
        CROWD
        Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
        BEDEVERE
        And what do you burn apart from witches?
        VILLAGER #1
        More witches!
        VILLAGER #3
        Shh!
        VILLAGER #2
        Wood!
        BEDEVERE
        So, why do witches burn?
        [pause]
        VILLAGER #3
        B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
        BEDEVERE
        Good! Heh heh.
        CROWD
        Oh, yeah. Oh.
        BEDEVERE
        So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
        VILLAGER #1
        Build a bridge out of her.
        BEDEVERE
        Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
        VILLAGER #1
        Oh, yeah.
        RANDOM
        Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
        BEDEVERE
        Does wood sink in water?
        VILLAGER #1
        No. No.
        VILLAGER #2
        No, it floats! It floats!
        VILLAGER #1
        Throw her into the pond!
        CROWD
        The pond! Throw her into the pond!
        BEDEVERE
        What also floats in water?
        VILLAGER #1
        Bread!
        VILLAGER #2
        Apples!
        VILLAGER #3
        Uh, very small rocks!
        VILLAGER #1
        Cider!
        VILLAGER #2
        Uh, gra-- gravy!
        VILLAGER #1
        Cherries!
        VILLAGER #2
        Mud!
        VILLAGER #3
        Churches! Churches!
        VILLAGER #2
        Lead! Lead!
        ARTHUR
        A duck!
        CROWD
        Oooh.
        BEDEVERE
        Exactly. So, logically...
        VILLAGER #1
        If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
        BEDEVERE
        And therefore?
        VILLAGER #2
        A witch!
        VILLAGER #1
        A witch!
        CROWD
        A witch! A witch!...
        VILLAGER #4
        Here is a duck. Use this duck.
        [quack quack quack]
        BEDEVERE
        We shall use my largest scales.
        CROWD
        Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
        BEDEVERE
        Right. Remove the supports!
        [whop]
        [clunk]
        [creak]
        CROWD
        A witch! A witch! A witch!
        WITCH
        It's a fair cop.
        VILLAGER #3
        Burn her!
        CROWD
        Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...
        BEDEVERE
        Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
        ARTHUR
        I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
        BEDEVERE
        My liege!
        ARTHUR
        Good Sir Knight, will you come with me to Camelot and join us at the Round Table?
        BEDEVERE
        My liege! I would be honored.
        ARTHUR
        What is your name?
        BEDEVERE
        'Bedevere', my liege.
        ARTHUR
        Then I dub you 'Sir Bedevere, Knight of the Round Table'.

  • Constitutionally... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blkros ( 304521 )
    speaking, if they didn't get a warrant to use this keylogger, it is just as illegal as a wiretap without a warrant. It is a case of illegal search and seizure which the US Constitution prohibits in the fourth amendment, which reads:

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
    effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
    violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
    by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
    searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    This is just FBI legal maneuvering, and we all know it, because keylogger tech is quite common. I know of at least 10 different keyloggers that you can download off the web.


    As a side comment--this is another case of new technology that the average person doesn't understand well(or at all), being used to degrade our rights.


    "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

    • Another possibility is that it was a hardware key logger. Someone posted a link to a commercial device called the KeyGhost [keyghost.com] that plugs inline on your PS/2 cable and looks like your ordinary cable bump.

  • What happens when they want to start putting it on all machines and reading what you are writing to your mistress? Then the use that information to co-urse you into something hmm?

    In case you have not heard, XP shipped recently.

    I rest my case, now if only the DOJ/MS could do the same.

    Moose.

    /. needs accumulative moderations points, that way I can have a goal of +5 funny informative interesting flamebait.
  • The Spooks have been shopping at the Thrift-Stores and gobbleing up thos old mid-90's Gateway keyboards with those darned 'Program' and 'Macro' keys. Then they sneek them into your house while you are in the pantry making a cheese fondu.



    See http://www.firmware.com/support/bios/anykey.htm if you don't know what I'm yammering about

  • Has it occured to anyone else that maybe what the FBI is calling a "keylogger" might actually be some type of EMF snooping? It's been possible for a long time for a properly equiped black van to park a short distance from the target, and "see" what's on the screen, for example. Maybe that's why it's "classified"?
    • You're assuming that a mobster wouldn't have the money to burn on toys like an LCD monitor, or maybe even a laptop.
  • Could the defense team fight it or push for the evidence gained from the key-logger to be deamed inadmissable since it's accuracy can not be proven at the present time?
  • one asks. Think upon this interesting note: If something is ruled either unconstitutional or, to a lesser extent, otherwise illegal, it is thus "useless" to the DoJ. So you must ask yourself, do they not reveal their methods for reasons of technical continuation for their devices or legal continuation for their devices?
    "The world may never know."

  • Recent Supreme Court Decision? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Saturday August 25, 2001 @04:52PM (#2216708) Homepage

    Recently, the supreme court decided that infared surveyance, and other "high technology" surveyance of someones's house was unconstitutional, since they involve an unreasonable invasion of privacy without a warrant. In other words, that to look in someone's house, you need a warrant, even if you aren't physically entering.


    So how does this apply to a keystroke monitor? Isn't that an unresonable invading of privacy, using a technology to circumvent "searches of persons and papers"?


    Does the FBI need a warrant to install one of these? Or if the computer is used for "business" (even illegal business) does the constituional prohibition against unreasonable search not apply.


    And more important, if we don't know how this works on a technical level, how will we ever find out whether or not it is constitutional?

  • I'm sorry your Honor but I cannot testify on how our classisfied Shoulder Surfing technology works. I can only tell you it works.
  • Becouse they dont know how it works. They downloaded it from Hackoo! [cleo-and-nacho.com].
  • so if i use a keylogger on somebody its illegal but if say the nsa logs me say that my "31337 w4r3z fTp 15 -> 1.2.3.4:420 nsa/sucks" they could use it against me?
  • That they don't want anyone to know that they bought their keylogger from ElComSoft.
  • A few years back, while playing around with a highly directional receiver (phase-shift antenna array) we were able to clearly ``hear'' the radio emissions from one of our keyboards at a distance of about 1/4 mile. Each key presented a unique waveform on an oscilloscope.

    If I were going to log keystrokes, I would be tempted to use the parked van approach. I'm sure with a reasonable budget and access to better technology, reading keystrokes would be easy at moderate distances.

    chongo () /\__/\

  • Assumed trust that's being overlooked (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ka9dgx ( 72702 ) on Sunday August 26, 2001 @01:22AM (#2217601) Homepage Journal
    Everyone assumes that there was some actual bug recording keystrokes. I don't make that assumption.

    <ConspiracyTheory>
    I choose instead to believe that some FBI agent talked to a buddy with the NSA, and they picked the PGP key for him, with the understanding that the "keyboard logger" cover story would be used.

    Now that things have gone in the dumpster, there IS NO KEYBOARD LOGGER to disclosed the details of.
    </ConspiracyTheory>

    Besides, anyone with a DigiKey [digikey.com] catalog and some time could build a VERY sweet keyboard logger, with remote dump via radio, etc. We should have a contest to see how few PIC chips it takes.

    --Mike--

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close