Why Did The FBI Retire Carnivore? 321
We posted earlier this week that the FBI has officially dropped Carnivore, its "privacy respecting" eavesdropping program. Now reader Throtex writes "Professor Orin Kerr at the George Washington University Law School, a member of the Volokh Conspiracy discusses why Carnivore came to be in the first place and why it really was terminated (about two years ago). Essentially, the media (as usual) got a bit carried away with a non-story: Carnivore was designed to protect your rights from being invaded while sniffing only suspect data. Carnivore was dropped because, as of two years ago, the available tools met the necessary privacy standards, as Prof. Kerr noted in his article about the PATRIOT Act published at the time."
ECHELON (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of ECHELON, maybe the reason people get so carried away with conspiracy theories is that our government is so bloody set against telling its own people what it does. AFAIK, even though a couple of European countries on the ECHELON project have admitted their membership, the U.S. government continues to deny such a thing even exists.
If this were a truly free country, we wouldn't have a government that's so hellbent on keeping things a secret. You can talk about the practical reasons behind keeping things secret to protect our interests and the people involved in the operations, but that doesn't change the fact that it makes the country non-free in the actual sense, and it gives people a very good reason to be jittery about snooping projects.
When the government is known to clam up and hide things, how can you ever be sure it's telling you the truth about its projects and that they really do what they're saying they do?
Re:ECHELON (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ECHELON (Score:5, Insightful)
Same goes for the Russians of years past. Had they known everything we were doing and knew about them, their view and response to us over time would be radically different.
In short, for ANY government to function, it must have secrets and be able to keep them.
Re:ECHELON (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they rebel because they don't like feeling they're being treaten like foes ?
BTW, I try to contribute to your masters' information indigestion : for example, when they said they'd monitor who'd take the kosher menu on the planes, I began taking it. Later, my boss told they'd monitor the proxy activity, I just began leaving my webmail window open with a 1 minute refresh so that he'd get 20x60 hits every hour (there are 19 images on my webmail window) even when I was in meeting.
Funny how he ended admiting this metric was just useless...
Now, believe me : if people believe in metrics and figure to assert how criminally you act, just give them enough for their money.
This police-state crap is just areason to off sucha system (insert Benjamin Franklin Gates quote here).
Re:ECHELON (Score:2, Insightful)
So while a government agent is checking you out, because you like to try and be suspicious, they cannot check out potential real criminals.
The gov't needs its secrets to help protect its people - because guess what - the bad guy has secrets and they are out there. If you think the system is so corrupt and that no politicians can be trusted - maybe you should become one and start setting things strai
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Yes. (Score:2)
Which is exactly the point.
Sometimes people need practical demonstrations of that.
I think where you and i disagree is not about the "shades of gray" issue. Where we disagree is about inerlocking shades of intent. If, by way of example, a complete loss of privacy (strip searches upon exiting the home, "your papers, please!" at every corner, etc. for one week would eliminate a very serious threat (and I don't think bin Laden actually qualifies for something this intrusive, bu
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Hell, look at the history of the US for even more examples. You've heard of McCarthyism? It's happened before. It's happened here. In fact, it's happened everywhere. It's not some slippery slope argument, it's facing reality. It is an absolute fact that law enforcment in the US abuses it's power. Not on a conspiracy theory
Re:Yes. (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:3, Insightful)
Which would in turn have lead to continued instability in Iraq. There would still be roadside bombings, kidnappings, assasinations...uh...wait a minute!
In the comic book world where the world is troubled by a handful of evil men, doing everything you can to catch them makes sense. In the real world, where many bad things happen in pursuit of g
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Original poster never mentioned the former leader of WWII Germany. Furthermore, said leader blatantly (through invasions) demonstrated his will to attack other countries in Europe, and eventually, to become a world power threatening nations on other continents; Saddam never presented such a threat, and probably never would have (no access to huge war machine such as Germany had).
If he had remained in power, and did somehow rise to become such a threat, then his removal would have been w
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Justb ecause the original poster did not mention WWII Germany does not mean I cannot to help make a point:
Nobody messed with Hitler at first because he was not a big threat. When he conquered one country he said he would stop and people believed him. He broke another treaty, but then said he would stop, and the cycle perpetuated until Hitler became a real threat. He never left Euripe/Asia as it was a bit harder to threaten other continents, not connected by land routes,
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Better than setting out to rid the world of "bad guys". The US's notion of "bad guys" has more than once encompassed elected leaders who didn't have the proper respect for American corporate interests.
Maybe attacking hitler was a bad thing to. What a mistake it was going to WWII. Man you got me there
We didn't attack Hitler. Hitler declared war on us. That aside, I said proceed cautiously, I didn't say never proceed.
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
So far I have not felt that my liberties have been given up. My day to day life is all the same - and I am sure yours is also.
Do you belive that Terrorists live in our country, terrorists communicate with people in our country? - if so then the FBI needs to use a sniffing pro
Re:ECHELON (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I do.
Do you not believe we should stop them?
Yes, I do.
Please help me out with this
I believe the people in question are in charge of multinational corporations and the US government.
Re:WRONG... dead wrong (Score:2)
Go jump on someone elses case and write a valid post.
The constitution, btw, was built on the assumption that it can be changed to help better protect the rights of the individual. Again, with things like Carnivore, I never felt intruded upon. I never had someone knock on my door and haul me away; nor did I ever have the
Re:ECHELON (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Besides, people have been putting "bomb bomb bomb bomb" in their e-mail sigs and USENET posts for practically forever now. If you think the gubment hasn't figured out ways to separate the investigative wheat from the anarchist chaff, you're fooling yourself.
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
> Same goes for the Russians of years past. Had they known everything we were
> doing and knew about them, their view and response to us over time would be
> radically different.
But they did know what you were doing - t
Re:ECHELON (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, postulating that threats make secrets necessary is just fearmongering. It also doesn't explain why Dick Cheney still refuses to release the energy task force records. Nor does it account for the long list of information Bush is withholding [americanprogress.org] from the American electorate.
Re:ECHELON (Score:3, Insightful)
As for refusing to release records, EVERY administration has refused to release records.
Re:ECHELON (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as records go, some are more secretive than others. Bush pegs the meter. Everything is considered national security or otherwise privileged. Even more suspicious is the extending of secrecy in the Presidential Records Act of 2001 just as the juicy bits of the Reagan Administration would have come to light. At the same time, some of the more questionable members of the Reagan Administration were getting new jobs in the Bush Administration. Poindexter comes to mind immediately, but is not the only one.
Ahhh, to be young!, and ignorant! (Score:3, Funny)
I remember my youth where I thought my president was the evilest thing that ever lived. Us old fogeys laugh at the kids who think Bush even breaks the halfway point on the evil scale.
I'm guessing you're about 19, because you sure as hell didn't live through Reagan.
Maybe. (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole thing eventually comes down to security through obscurity - a somewhat dangerous philosophy.
The British followed such a philosophy for years, not even admitting that MI5 and MI6 existed. Eventually, they realised that this offered zero additional protection. Those who were a threat already knew they existed and had probably infiltrated both, so the only ones being kept in the dark were the voters/taxpayers. They abandoned the cloak of secrecy and even published the name of the head of MI6. The world didn't explode, civilization didn't collapse, and people carried on pretty much as normal.
In the case of Echelon, stating whether or not it exists wouldn't seriously hurt US national security. Those with secrets to hide are likely to already use a wide range of evasion and encryption techniques. Knowing that Echelon is out there, without knowing the details of how it works, wouldn't provide any information they wouldn't already be assuming to be true.
What it does do is make it possible to correct any flaws in the system, as it currently exists. it wouldn't require anyone to say what those flaws were, or how the system works, but it would allow them to bill for fixing things.
Carnivore, by all accounts, was superceded by commercial tools. Why? Did the FBI sack all of its software engineers, the day after the product went into service? Probably not. The official figures suggest that the product saw a steady decline in usefulness, which suggests that there was little or no maintenance or development. This likely started when the project was classified, as the available data suggests it had reached terminal decline by the time it was admitted to.
There was absolutely nothing preventing the FBI from keeping Carnivore up-to-date. If they started ahead of everyone else, they should have remained ahead of everyone else. In fact, if they had programmers so good that they COULD start ahead of those who'd been working on the problem for some time, they should have INCREASED the gap between themselves and commercial vendors.
They didn't. Well, you can hardly hire a contractor to fix an unacknowledged bug in a system you won't admit exists. The more secret you make these things, the harder it gets to get the bug reports from the users to the programmers.
The problem with GOTS software (or hardware) is that there is an unstated assumption that problems will fix themselves if you bury them deep enough. That is why Carnivore became outdated, not some magical advancement by the commercial sector.
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Not at all. This is the classic security-through-obscurity argument.
A much better approach is to come up with a strategy where you come out ahead even though the other players know what you know. In fact, it's possible to come up with strategies where yo
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Try playing a game of Warcraft where only *you* have FOW turned on. This is what it would be like if a government keeps no secrets.
Some things do need to be secret. Determining what is keep secret is the difficult part, and unfortunately the part we have to trust our elected officials to make.
Also, stop using the old "security-through-obscurity" argument. It's out of place and you don't seem to know what it really
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
During Vietnam, secret agents (ie white guys in white seersucker suits and Panama jack hats) were spotted by the Vietcong about 5 minutes after their plane landed.
Today, secret agents (ie white guys with sunglasses and a bunch of equipment) prowl the street
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
With the 'very limited' exception of Germany, no european country exists within 'Echelon'
The UK? [wikipedia.org] I know, it doesn't really want to be European! ;)
Re:ECHELON (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
She isn't really interested in fixing anything, she (Boxes) would do the same if it went to furthering her interests. She's more interested in winning a political battle and scoring some points for "her side" than actually winning something for the people.
Fact is, most people think in terms of "us" and "them" so she'd be an idiot not to pay homage to that system. If she didn't she wouldn't get re-elected.
The fact that
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
You drew that implication. And it is an implication, not what the phrase means. What the phrase means is simply that the motivation was political -- gee, go figure. I believe the correct implication to draw is that it was not for an altruistic reason that these arguments were brought up. It was not for the good of the people, or because i
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
None of these are motivated by any perception of success - there was no way that Ohio's electoral votes wouldn't be accepted; the threat of stonewalling policy reform such as Social Se
Re:ECHELON (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
1) The word, "forcast" (SIC).
2) The word, "virus".
3) The word, "government".
4) The word, "rain".
5) The number, "69".
6) The letter, "O".
As a libertarian, I'm as anti-federal government on issues even aside from security and agree with you, but I'm not going to buy into a mythical system devised by those that write on a daily basis about the "illumninati" which, in
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
And what did you mean by the last sentence, why we might not want to be seeing? I'm not afraid, are you?
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
I had a similar feeling as I read mad_poster's missive.
This is akin to the Parent's Dilemma: Would you teach your child to NEVER lie, even if that meant that your child could disclose your hiding spot to a person who means you harm?
Q. Do you know where your mommy is? Don't lie!
A. My mommy taught me to never lie. Yes, I know where she is.
You get the point.
Re:ECHELON (Score:2)
If they're tought that properly the above question would be answered with a punch to the throat or something
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because (Score:2)
encouraged to lay fiber optic cable went tits-up?
Or why there is so much more "dark" fiber than
"lit" fiber? Or if just maybe there was a secret
deal between MS and the DoJ (anti-monopoly
settlement) to make||leave holes in their OS for
the Feds? Or where all that cash from the 2004
election really went (like into propaganda to
push thru the US public media outlets?)
The FBI's "CARNIVORE" project was dropped because
they don't need it anymore. Between all the
securi
Re:Because (Score:2)
The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, if the FBI had the resources and access to the right people, why couldn't they build Carnivore out of open-source material and not resort to "commercially available" products?
Put another way: With modern hardware being dirt cheap and OSS getting better and better, what would it take to build a system that comes close (or even surpasses) what Carnivore had to offer?
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:2)
Or c. know about it?
If the grandparent post was suggesting they just simply build it out of existing open source stuff, you could write a network utility and never know it had been rolled into this hypothetical OSS-based Carnivore.
It's not that simple (Score:2)
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:2)
Oh. I thought it may have been:
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite the hollywood image, there is no war room full of MIT and CalTech graduates in T-shirts controlling a massive array of satellites, communications gear, and directing an endless supply of sunglass-wearing thugs.
It takes a long time to get approval, get funds, and get PO's c
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:2)
With the exception of forensics, I honestly don't know if the techies in the organization are even as ahead as the techies in the corporate/opensource sector.
They say you can tell how stupid or smart someone is when they open their mouths. FBI built an intelligent reputation by not saying much.
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:2)
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:2)
So to other posters who say the FBI agents aren't the brightest - you would be surprised who works in the FBI and the level of intelligence/knowledge
Re:The reason why Carnivore failed... (Score:2)
Ok, since we're breaking out the tinfoil hats... (Score:2, Interesting)
They say they've retired Carnivore.
Why tell us? And how do we know they actually did?
ffs (Score:2, Funny)
The solution is obvious - you must barricade yourself in your own house, destroy the phones and televisions, and sit quietly on the couch so the thermal pickups dont register your presence. It's the only way you'll have privacy!
Re:Ok, since we're breaking out the tinfoil hats.. (Score:2, Interesting)
my guess... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) too much bad publicity
2) Existing tech can do what they want now
3) the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act let's them do more anyway.
The usual reason.... (Score:3, Funny)
Ingriiiiiid! (Score:5, Funny)
I blame PETA.
That can't be right!! (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, NO!!
I read it on SLASHDOT!! The Gubmint wants to read my e-mail! It's part of their Total Information Awareness plot to put me in JAIL! They want to label me a TERRORIST and send me to GITMO!!
Don't tell me it's not true! It's on the INTERNET for crying out loud!
You miss the conspiracy potential. (Score:2)
The implication here is that Carnivore was only being used because they had to respect your rights. Post-PATRIOT act, they don't have to bother with that, and are now just happily reading *everything*. Of COURSE the government wants to know how many questions you asked that guy selling Star Wars Action Figures on ebay. It's important in the fight against terrorism.
I'm not sure about the rest of you but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not sure about the rest of you but... (Score:2)
Re:I'm not sure about the rest of you but... (Score:2)
Re:I'm not sure about the rest of you but... (Score:2)
yeah, i know... i must be new here.
Little do we know... (Score:3, Funny)
-Gator
-CoolWebSearch
-ISTbar
-and Internet Optimizer
RTFA...this is not a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA...this is not a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the phrase for this is, "When all else fails, lower your standards".
Re:RTFA...this is not a good thing (Score:2)
Scary (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that instead of using a more privacy friendly tool (i never though i'll use this expression on carnivore) is NOT needed any more because of the patriot act? That's just plain scary. It's like saying "oh, instead of catching one guilty guy with good surveillance method, we just blanket-search 10'000 and we'll find our criminal that way". I hope i'm not correct with this interpetation.
Re:Scary (Score:2)
You are correct, but don't worry, it won't be abused since Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (a rubber-stamp court) have complete oversight over everything the FBI does under Patriot. Honest.
Chuck
Re:Scary (Score:2)
So hey, if you want to go off on a tangent about how evil PATRIOT ACT/Echelon/John Ascroft/etc are, that's fin
My theory (Score:5, Interesting)
The result, I'm convinced, is that they hire a lot of sub-standard programmers, who create poorly designed products at great expense. And if the product doesn't work, well, thats another $100 million of taxpayer money down the drain.
These outfits need to either figure out a way to use better programmers who don't have security clearances, or figure out how to get good programmers cleared without a 2 year delay. Until that happens, a lot of substandard coders will contiue to write failed applications on the taxpayer dollar.
Re:My theory (Score:2)
they can get you an "interim" clearance
an interim secret clearance, assuming you dont have any major red-flags on your record, takes like 9 days. That lets you access 'secret' level stuff until your full investigation finishes.
The downside is, it costs the company a ridiculous amount of money to get you put in for a clearance (thousands of dollars - I've heard 10's of thousands even), so they REALLY prefer to get people who already have a clearance.
I guess you could
The gist of his argument is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't encrypt your email and web traffic, you have no "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Apparently, "addressing information" - that is, packet headers - are not a part of confidential communications, and as such, it does not represent an invasion of privacy to read them.
While I understand his argument that PATRIOT merely made pre-existing wiretap laws apply to the internet, this fact alone doesn't make the existing laws right. For example, just knowing who called who when, even without revealing the details of content, does significantly invade one's privacy. In these times when someone can be detained simply because they "may have knowledge of a criminal act", divulging the websites a person visits is still too dangerous. Someone concerned about the rise of radical Islam could easily be detained as a "potential terrorist" simply because they did some independent research on Islam using the internet. Even scanning addressing information alone is too much power for a government in which the mere declaration that one is an "enemy combatant" can be used to arbitrarily deny one's civil liberties.
Re:The gist of his argument is that... (Score:2)
Even under the PATRIOT act, there are still checks and balances, some cases the government wins, others it loses. The PATRIOT act allowing the government to streamline the process when dealing with terrorists, which scatter alot more quickly than other criminals.
I know!! I know!! (Score:3, Funny)
Conspiracy Theorists? (Score:2, Insightful)
Would it be more like... (Score:2)
Hi! I'm from the FBI. (Score:3, Funny)
We just came out with Omnivore, essentially Carnivore II. It's made-up of a massive Xbox cluster (that's what we get when we contract it to Microsoft) and has every major exchange hooked into it. It's also the reason people seem to be fascinated with Area 51. Please note that all those old Russion MIGs and freaky green, glowing lights were just cover (the green lights were Das Blinkinlights while we were experimenting with BeOS).
Please note that Carnivore II is currently intercepting the nude photos that your GF is sending you and FBI agents are probably posting them up in the office right now. Also, it is more than capable of intercepting every e-mail with the word terrorist, seeing as how the Bush Administration would rather that you use the words "Men Of Extreme Evil" so as not to let them win by even acknowleging their presence on Earth. So if you even use the word "terror," we will come after you in your sleep and put you in GITO forever, then you will need to put up with endlessly being forced to dance in front of the other "Men Of Extreme Evil." Thank you for your understanding in this matter. We apologize for any confusion. Remember, Uncle Sam is just trying to decide what's best for YOU!
Wasn't used very much (Score:5, Insightful)
he FBI performed only eight Internet wiretaps in fiscal 2003 and five in fiscal 2002; none used the software initially called Carnivore and later renamed the DCS-1000, according to FBI documents submitted to Senate and House oversight committees. The FBI, which once said Carnivore was "far better" than commercial products, said previously it had used the technology about 25 times between 1998 and 2000.
Carnivor was not a system designed to watch Internet traffic 24/7/365 and flag stuff that looked like potential usefull data on random people. It was used to monitor people who were already under investigation.
I don't hear many people cry foul over a regular telephone wiretap, which is done for the same reasons under the same circumstances - they wiretap telephones of people who are already under investigation (I realize that Eschelon is different, but Eschelon is not a telephone wiretap on a suspect's phone. Its a wiretap on all communications, or so some people claim).
And the Patriot Act does require a court order to do most things. Its just that its not the courts that we think about. Its a secret court. There have been articles on the very subject.
I don't believe that the FBI simply randomly picks people to monitor and do searches of houses at random, etc. There is some "oversight", although to most of us, that "oversight" is secret (yes, that can lead to abuse).
Or perhaps it has served its purpose. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, exactly, should we believe this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it sounds credible (which it does?)
Because he says "I was in government at the time the story broke?"
Should I believe everything Theodore Postol says? He's a professor, too.
This story is nothing but a set of assertions. There's not so much as a single citation to back any of this up.
Not provable (Score:2)
How would you go about proving that you're *not* using something? Any "citation" would just be the assertion of someone else, necessarily failing your test.
Re:Why, exactly, should we believe this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its just some mostly Republican law junkies posting their opinions in a very fast and loose style. No citations, very little to oversight, no comments, etc. Its how not to run a political blog, but right wing blogs tend to have that kind of format (just tell us what to think!) as open commenting tends to hurt their car
Most net traffic is P2P (Score:2)
So they can safely watch most of it pretty easily...
and for minimal cash be able to say they watch the majority of web traffic.
If that's effective or not... that's another story.
But the FBI is just a government organization. It's goal is to keep the public calm and stay within budget. That's it's only goal.
WHITEWASH (Score:2)
Website down? (Score:2)
Wiretapping has been outsourced to Verisign (Score:5, Informative)
VeriSign's NetDiscovery service provides telecom network operators, cable operators, and Internet service providers with a streamlined service to help meet requirements for assisting government agencies with lawful interception and subpoena requests for subscriber records. Net Discovery is the premier turnkey service for provisioning, access, delivery, and collection of call information from operators to law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
Verisign does this for telephony by using (or abusing) their control of Signalling System 7. [verisign.com], the routing network for telephony. When a wiretap request comes in, they change the SS7 routing data to route calls to/from the phone of interest to their call monitoring center, from which the call is then routed outward again. To the telephone network, this looks like call forwarding. This approach requires no additional hardware at the wireline carrier; it's done through the existing SS7 infrastructure. (Incidentally, this should increase latency, depending on how far you are from Northern Virginia. But they may have remote monitoring centers by now to cut that down.)
Verisign also offers wiretapping services for mobile phones [verisign.com], and cable-based VoIP [monster-isp.com].
Efforts are underway to integrate NetDiscovery capability into future Cisco routers. [phoneplusmag.com]
Verisign takes the carrier or ISP completely out of the loop. [verisign.com] "Authorized Government agencies" can submit their wiretapping request to Verisign, where they are "reviewed by a paralegal" and then implemented. There's no need for the carrier or ISP to even be aware of the wiretap.
So that's why there's no need for Carnivore any more.
Verisign - your full service wiretapping solution provider.
For the same reason the CIA retired the Blackbird (Score:3, Insightful)
McAfee & commercial vendors are the new Carniv (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why Did The FBI make you think (Score:2)
Re:Why Did The FBI make you think (Score:2)
Re:Big Brother Is Watching.... (Score:2)