Tap-Tap-Tapping the Net 132
The IETF will be considering building wiretapping into internet protocols (see previous slashdot story) tonight at their conference; the Washington Post has a story on the subject. A great many civil liberties and technically-oriented organizations have signed onto an Open Letter urging the IETF to reject any attempt to build snooping into the net.
Ha! (Score:1)
Whatever. (Score:5)
Secondly, why should we care? Anyone doing anything illicit will be using encryption anyway. So catching criminals isn't the issue here. Hell, I frequently use PGP for stuff that I don't consider sensitive - like sending source back and fourth between my friends. The only use for a wiretapping protocol will be to let the l335 h4x0r d00ds have a reign of terror on the 'net.
I say to hell with the IETF - Let the chips fall where they may (and they will fall!).--
Encryption (Score:3)
There was a story some time back about Freedom, a web encrption scheme that encrypts all communication between your PC and the servers you are communicating with. Does anyone have a link, or more info? I have lost mine since then.
Won't work... (Score:2)
What if I need to talk about important stuff on IRC? Encrypted DCC Chat.
File Transfers? Easy, compress with a password.
Any kind of protocol for this would be easy to break past. Just remember, they can't watch everyone all the time so they won't watch most of the people any of the time. Encryption wouldn't even have to be extremely strong...just powerful enough for them to not be able to look directly at it. There's FAR too much information out there to decode it all.
Wiretapping protocols (Score:5)
- How do the IETF propose to wiretap -AND- have strong PtP IPSec encryption?
- How do the IETF propose to locate packets, given that routers decide paths on-the-fly?
- How do the IETF propose to enforce this, when they are not a regulatory body? In fact, the strongest the IETF can do is release an RFC, which is just that - a request for comments.
- Who, exactly, is going to implement this wiretapping protocol? Even if the entire backbone used it, all you need do is tunnel through and the protocol becomes useless.
- What protections can the IETF impose, which guarantee that the wiretapping would even work, even assuming you -could- find all the fragments of all the packets and re-assemble them all? It's easy enough to modify a TCP/IP stack. A few tweaks here, a few tweaks there, and you're sending valid data which the sniffer will reject, but which your intended recipient will accept.
In balance, I think it's useless, pointless and stupid. Stick to IPv6 promotion. That's useful. This isn't.So let's not user their protocol (Score:1)
Dumb move.. (Score:1)
A matter of principle... (Score:3)
The response was simple: Just because somebody can open up an envelope doesn't mean that we send all our mail on post cards. The envelope may *not* help privacy in a lot of cases, but we still use it. It's a matter of principle-- just because somebody can violate your privacy, there is no reason to openly invite them to do so!
Some people have been saying that the government is able to listen in on our communications anyway, so why not add in a provision to allow them to do it more easily?
Simple: we can't *condone* a violation of privacy. Scott McNealy may say that we have no privacy, so get over it, but I'll bet he'd raise all holy hell if one of his employees were to read through all his e-mail.
By implementing a standard that would allow the government the ability to snoop in on our conversations, we are not only condoning such action, but encouraging it! Never, at any time, should we encourage the government to (with or without permission) monitor our communications!
Just my $0.02
Shouldn't we build our own protocols? (Score:1)
I mean sure, you'd lose some compatibility, but just like Alternic [alternic.org], it personal/private protocols could definitely have their places and uses. Build an encrypted protocol, or a protocol which could be encrypted/signed with a pgp key and the world will love you. Keep your communications private and your own. Nobody owns you, nobody owns your communcations, nobody owns your thoughts, and nobody should own your entire means of communications.
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
And no one cares...
I kinda like that song
But really, if there is a God, I hope he isn't the self rightous bastard they describe in the Bible.. I mean, come on, who wants to worhsip I guy like this?
Why is it every God(s/ess(es)) mankind has dreamed up has the behavior of a child?
Worhsip me or you burn in hell! Come on, a nice god would let you in no matter what, as long as you were a nice person.. and so on and on..
Anyways, I'm outta here - relisgious discussions give me headaches..
Holes in one layer of the OSI model (Score:2)
For example, I think it'd be harder to make IPv6 less secure than IPv4, but we have layers on top of IPv4 that are sufficently secure.
On another related point: will the relaxation on exporting cryptographic source lead to the 'secure linux' patch being merged with the main kernel tree any time soon? Or are there other problems with the patch?
I'll worry when Bill has a near fatal head injury (Score:1)
And then launches MS Four Horsemen
George
Re:Won't work... (Score:1)
To much information to decode, Yes, But a selective attack makes things alot easier. And what kind of equipment do you think the gov. has. Gotta be things that we only know about in theory. The things that we think aren't breakable for years they might be able to break in hours.
And by the way, why would you want anyone gov. or not to intentionally put in a security hole? Just leaving another door for crackers.
Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:4)
Now, I say this as a hardcore privacy advocate. I'm not the enemy. I'm a theorist, who wants to know:
Is wiretapping evil?
By that, I mean do people have an intrinsic right to privacy that doesn't end when they begin violating the rights of others?
After all, few of us would complain about the subpeonas that have been delivered unto Tobacco Companies, Microsoft, and hopefully RealNetworks. Subpeonas are after the fact violations of privacy--society is demanding some chunk of personal information from the subpeona'd party. Steganography is designed to defeat such information gathering techniques...but the existence of the technology doesn't mean subpeonas must be evil.
Nor too does the existence of wiretapping prevention technology automatically make wiretaps illegal.
From what I've been able to discern from the literature, there's a slant towards arguing that wiretapping should be difficult--essentially, so it's only used for cases where national security is at risk. Can a system be designed where it is intrinsically difficult, but not impossible for society to spy on certain individuals' communications?
Again, I'm the guy at work who is the point man on SSH, on custom designed secured VPN proxy links(believe me, that actually makes sense), and all these types of technology. But I'm also the guy that, when his friend was attacked by somebody who called her on the phone a half hour before, ran to campus Information Technology demanding the phone logs(and was oh-so-irate when they wouldn't let me write the simple Perl scripts necessary to extract them from the logging port on the switch. And people wonder why IT hates me.
Screaming about how child molestors are being used to justify widespread Big Brother monitoring is all too appropriate...but begs the question, what about the child molestors? Is it possible to shield everyone but expose those who society does need exposed?
At least a government intrinsically possesses citizen oversight. Corporations and "Mafia" style operations have no such limitations, and flourish quite well under power vacuums. A government that cannot keep tabs on such organizations is arguably irrelevant to them--just look at Russia lately.
Sooner or later, I'm going to be taken to task over the secure technologies I'm personally involved with designing and deploying, and I want to be able to reply with something I believe in. I want to be able to defend my position, and I need your help to do so.
So, is wiretapping evil?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Big company fears (Score:4)
This leads me to wonder: Since this has arisen because of IP telephony, is it possible that traditional phone companies, fearing a loss of business to entities who don't comply with wiretap laws, are pushing this proposal? Seems like an interesting conspiracy theory at least.
Anyway, the IETF will probably kill this bad idea.
Go for it. (Score:1)
Enough is enough. (Score:2)
--Parity
IETF isn't the bad guys (Score:2)
(1) isn't the bad guys, and
(2) probably will decide to ignore wiretapping concerns in protocol definitions
The question the IETF is debating the answer to is, roughly, "should wiretapping laws (of varoius countries) be considered a factor in protocol designs." It's a good and important question to ask and folks shouldn't demonize them for asking it.
That having been said, the answer will probably -- quite sensibly -- be "no."
--G
Colors on Slashdot? (Score:1)
Is it just me and my version of Netscape? Is Rob color blind? Is there some secret conspiracy to make me go crazy? What is going on?
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
* yes I know the 1984 card is overplayed, but it actually applies here.
Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:2)
I hate to tell you all of this, but this is not echelon. This is not a grand government plot. This is about the application of existing law-enforcement techniques (wiretapping phones) to new technology (wiretapping information transactions). The same procedures for getting a wiretap on a phone will be required for getting a wiretap on information transactions.
So, what, exactly, is the problem? Unless you are a criminal, and quite a significant one, you have nothing to fear from the FBI. If you did have something to fear from the FBI, your phone would be wiretapped already, your house will be bugged, and your actions monitored. And no, the FBI does not have the manpower to listen into your phone unless you are quite the bad*ss. Even then, a federal judge has to approve the warrant (the legal document, not the band) that will allow them to wiretap you.
While I feel there are some security issues introduced by this, I hardly think that it isn't worth the value given. I mean, on one hand, some incompetent sysadmin gets his system hacked (and it would have been anyway), or we can't get the information needed to convict dangerous criminals.
I hate to be this way, but I feel that some /.ers are law-enforcement luddites. On one hand, they believe technology is great, and we can use it in new and exciting ways. On the other hand, they believe law-enforcement shouldn't be allowed to expand their existing abilities to take new technologies into account.
I'm just rambling anyway -- really, if ISP's would really be required by law to provide wiretapping capabilities to the FBI, they'll have to figure out some way to do it, regardless of what the IETF says or does.
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:3)
Or search through your files if you're a corporation. They take over your office and demand you deliver all emails archived over the course of the last year.
The government doesn't (ostensibly) wiretap Bill Gates.
After the fact, they got Gates' private email...
There is no check or balance when law enforcement can wiretap. Using technology, it becomes feasible to place a huge number of people remotely connected to someone they are investigating, scan for key words (even in voice, if not now, then soon). It's 1984. * And that's just government wiretapping. That doesn't even touch criminal wiretapping (and its technological cousins...)
So all wiretapping is bad because some wiretapping can be abused?
This is the kind of logic we hate in Internet discussions--"Some people seduce 16 year olds on IRC, so all of IRC is BAD!"
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:I'll worry when Bill has a near fatal head inju (Score:1)
Meet the MS Four Horsemen 2000:
MS Mutual Violent Intent
MS Lack-of-Food
MS Viral Outbreak aka Outlook
MS Unsurvivable Occurrence
MS Four Horsemen 2000 comes bundled with the intuitive MS LeviathanPlayer for streaming media formats, and fully supports the MS WhoreOfBabylon web page extensions, because we value our ability to innovate. MS Apocalypse can be a pretty intimidating place. MS Four Horsemen 2000 is designed to make the experience a whole lot easier.
(this goes along the lines of the old joke among my friends that one day we will wake up and find that MS has released a wonderful new product entitled "MS Breathable Gas")
--
Re:I'll worry when Bill has a near fatal head inju (Score:2)
Imagine the EULA (Score:1)
George
the problem is who do you trust? (Score:3)
Stop for a moment and imagine the government's ideal scenario. They want unhampered access to as many forms of communication as possible. At the same time, they want people to think their communications are secure. That way, people will talk openly, and they can gather more information on the bad guys.
So they say.
How far does it go, though? Take a few sample cases...
Frankly, I think the government can shove wiretapping up its ass. Joe Average is the one who really gets the brunt of their scrutiny. Is our society so paranoid that we must spy on our own people? That's not the kind of life I want, although it gets more that way every day.
Best regards,
SEAL
Re:Colors on Slashdot? (Score:1)
no. it's at least both of us. I wonder if there are meanings to the colors, or if they're testing a feature which will allow user configurable slashdot colors?
Internet != America (Score:1)
I'm not saying that the US has a monopoly on intrusive surveillance (Enfopol may (or may not) be as bad as anything y'all can come up with). But what's needed is a global perspective.
(In case you were wondering, btw, I don't want to be tapped by the CIA any more than you want to be tapped by the FBI).
What? (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:2)
Anybody ever look at the output from a packet sniffer?
Moreover, there are three key problems:
1. Any protocol for transmitting data, can also transmit encrypted data.
2. Any protocol is a software specification, and therefore must be adopted by the industry before having impact on the community.
3. Any Internet protocol must support the wide variety of computers on the Internet, including, old computers, legacy systems, and technology being deployed TODAY. Who's gonna upgrade software to facilitate snooping their data?
John
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
Where? (Score:1)
I have in fact read my bible, and I have read the Revelation, several times. I see nothing that gives me any impression that everything will be recorded. Well, God will do some recording, but nothing indicates either a goverment or other human institution will do recording.
For your post to be on topic it must be true, that is there must really be something in the bible that says in the last days everything will be recorded.
Re:Encryption (Score:1)
Kaa
my way... (Score:2)
-Set up a dedicated secure linux firewall running IP_MASQ
-Install and configure CIPE [sites.inka.de]. Here's the HOW-TO [linuxdoc.org]
That allows Virtual Private Networking with 128bit encryption. Its GPLed, and after you get it set up its incredibly fast (I use it over a cable modem). Its a lot more secure than a NFS+SAMBA solution.
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
Bill of Rights. (Score:3)
- Ammendment IV
It looks to me like they got it right the first time. Nowhere in there does the U.S. Government have the mandate to universally require wiretap ability, but may force it only on specific people or places when justified by probable cause with supporting testimony.
I've seen no politicians stand up and oppose this section of the Bill of Rights, yet far too many try to violate it. I think the U.S. would do well as a country if its politicians read the Constitution once through...
Re:Wiretapping protocols (Score:1)
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
Seriously, I don't get it. Maybe God needs a shrink.
Don't let the facts stop a good flame. (Score:2)
"should the IETF develop new protocols or modify existing protocols to support mechanisms whose primary purpose is to support wiretapping or other law enforcement activities"
"what should the IETF's position be on informational documents that explain how to perform message or data-stream interception without protocol modifications"
Mass Confusion! (Score:2)
Since when the hell did IETF gain any form of actual control? They can release an RFC, right? BFD... It's not like they write any actual CODE or anything..
You don't want people spying on your communications? Use code that doesn't implement that spec. Wheeee!
Does anyone honestly think that, given a choice, an indiviual would choose a piece of software that is intentionally insecure? Really, given an actual, informed choice, mind you...
IETF has no real power. They can define the spec all they want, just don't use that spec. There's already specs out there which are not tapable. Use those instead. The whole point of the RFC system is "may the best protocol win", right? So.. May the best protocol win.
---
Re:Bill of Rights. (Score:2)
This presumes there are reasonable searches and seizures.
Nowhere in there does the U.S. Government have the mandate to universally require wiretap ability,
Well, if there are reasonable searches, there must be an ability to execute that search. Since it's impossible to predetermine which communications can be reasonably searched, all must be made searchable, and the courts must determine which ones may be searched.
At least, that's how the argument goes. Where's the flaw in it?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Means of appeasement (Score:3)
My suspicion is that this is a way of saying "Nice doggy" to the 'powers that be', because the 'powers that be' can fund backbone upgrades, provide research grants, and lobby in favor of certain protocols and technologies...
This support from the federal government would mean a lot to the members of the IETF, and if the price of the support is providing a back door that leads nowhere, so be it.
The people on the IETF are not as dumb as those twisting their arms are.
Besides, what better way to convince big business to lobby for strong encryption than to show that lack thereof is tapable?
Slickness points to the IETF.
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
Am I the only one that finds that statement scary? Was Martin Luther King Jr. a significant criminal?
Us non-Americans? (Score:1)
Re:Whatever. (Score:1)
If they won't use the iptel equipment, there is no reason to have iptel working groups. Solution?
- compromise and pay lip service to the fed wiretapping requirement
- disband the iptel working groups
- keep going and ignore the industry
- none of the above
:)
It's a fun world out there--ac
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
Bullcrap. The FBI has a historical record of using wiretaps, sometimes illegal ones, to gather information on people deemed by them to need watching. The embarassing info thus gathered was used (please note that: it was used) to pressure people into toeing the FBI line. Hoover kept himself in his job for years by gathering info on the politicans who were supposed to be his bosses. Has that kind of thing stopped now... or have they gotten better at hiding it?
The argument that only people breaking the law have something to fear is simply not true. Having an affair isn't illegal, but it's probably not something you want everyone to know about either. The FBI has already proven themselves to be abusers of this kind of power. They do not deserve to be given even more power.
Colors intentional (Score:2)
I suspect that Rob/Andover is trying to increase ad revenue by increasing membership. Making slashdot contain more eyecandy, thereby attracting AOL users like moths to a lamp.
I just hope that it's actually a bug-light.
Just ignore them. The colors should fade in 8 to 12 hours... Have a nice trip.
*cough* Bandwidth? (Score:1)
Is icky. I suspect 'internet wiretaps' will never get too far -- at the very least places like /. and such will scream loudly enough to be heard.
~Owen
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
Inquiring minds, and all that, eh?
Is wiretapping evil?
No. It is not intrinsically evil and there are plenty of situations when it can be justified.
By that, I mean do people have an intrinsic right to privacy that doesn't end when they begin violating the rights of others?
Yes. However that right is generally not recognized by governments.
Yes. The point is the balance of power between an individual and the government. Part of that balance is that it is infeasible for the government to keep tabs on everyone all the time. If (rather, when) that situation changes, the balance of power will shift. It is my considered opinion that we should try to prevent this balance from shifting towards the government side. Part of it is making wiretapping difficult.
Screaming about how child molestors are being used to justify widespread Big Brother monitoring is all too appropriate...but begs the question, what about the child molestors?
There is a trade-off. You trade off personal freedom against safety (that is, against making it easier for the police to catch law-breakers). In the US the founders had a lot to say about this trade-off, the two most noticeable ideas being that (1) Freedom is more important than safety; and (2) It is better to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent.
Is it possible to shield everyone but expose those who society does need exposed?
No, because that presupposes a conviction (you need to be exposed) before the information was gathered (otherwise, why do you need to expose the guy?).
At least a government intrinsically possesses citizen oversight.
Er... You probably mean "a democratic government in a Western country". Look at Pol Pot Cambodia and North Korea for extreme examples.
So, is wiretapping evil?
No, but it has to be hard to do. The issue is not an absolute right of an individual to be safe from search and seizure, or an absolute right of a government to find out what it wants to know -- neither exist. The issue is balance of power between an individual and the government. It can be shown that any government (any bureacracy, to be more exact) tries to accumulate as much power as it can get away with. Moreover, the interests of the government (as a collection of people with political power) are not necessarily the same, or even close to the interests of the entire society. Add to this that governments tend to be inept, clumsy, stupid, suffer from delusions of grandeur, and make mistakes on colossal scale.
Governments are useful, no question about it. A reasonably decent government is much better than no government at all. But a government that accumulated too much power is dangerous and, as history shows, usually ends up inflicting considerable damage on the society.
The argument above is a pragmatic one. There is also a philosophical one -- you can treat history as the struggle for power between individuals and organizations (chiefs, governments, churches, corporations, etc.) and I, personally, take the individuals' side in this struggle. But to somebody who believes that the man's unbridled nature is chaotic (at best) or evil (at worst) and that he needs to be "civilized" by the society -- to such people the philosophical argument will not make much sense.
Kaa
Not for Technically Savvy Linux Users (Score:3)
No, the only people this would affect will be closed source OS users, notably the 90% of PC users who use Windows.
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
A subpoena or search warrant is served to an individual. They come and knock on your door.
You said:
Or search through your files if you're a corporation. They take over your office and demand you deliver all emails archived over the course of the last year.
I was afraid you wouldn't understand what my point was, since your example illustrates this. I could have written it better. When you search the files of the corporation you serve them with a warrant. The company knows it has been served with a warrant. The point I was trying to make is that it is important to know when you are being searched. Your example doesn't change this.
I said:
The government doesn't (ostensibly) wiretap Bill Gates.
You said:
After the fact, they got Gates' private email...
And he knew when they got it. The government didn't put secretly put a packet sniffer on the network... that I know of.
I said:
There is no check or balance when law enforcement can wiretap. Using technology, it becomes feasible to place a huge number of people remotely connected to someone they are investigating, scan for key words (even in voice, if not now, then soon). It's 1984. * And that's just government wiretapping. That doesn't even touch criminal wiretapping (and its technological cousins...)
You said:
So all wiretapping is bad because some wiretapping can be abused?
I shouldn't have changed the subject in the last sentence. Protection from criminals is a great reason to protect your privacy (through encryption). That does not have anything to do with your question, are privacy advocates necessarily against subpoenas and search warrants against suspected criminals. So I'll concede that for this discussion.
The first part of what I said, however, attempts to explain the effective difference between subpoenas and search warrants (a lawful society, IMHO) and wiretaps (internet or otherwise).
There is some wiggle room. It's not exactly black and white. Supposedly, FBI, police etc are required to get a court order to wiretap phones. There is room for debate. But don't suppose that all privacy advocates have nothing to stand on just because there are legitimate reasons and methods for enforcing the law.
Re:Where? (Score:1)
Re:Bill of Rights. (Score:1)
>must be an ability to execute that search. Since
>it's impossible to predetermine which
>communications can be reasonably searched, all
>must be made searchable, and the courts must
>determine which ones may be searched.
>At least, that's how the argument goes. Where's
>the flaw in it?
The flaw is that the concept "all must be made searchable" violates the right of the people to be secure, and the Ammendment reads that such will "not be violated".
Wiretaps should only occur when there is already just cause for suspecting the target of committing a crime. And when such does exist, extreme measures can be taken such as planting a car outside of the targets house, or placing a small bug near the targets phone, or storming the target's home and taking the target's computer equipment. The situation of a suspected criminal sitting there committing crimes using encryption as a shield of immunity is a non-issue. The situation does not exist in a real physical world.
Re:Not for Technically Savvy Linux Users (Score:1)
Sure. But you would also like to talk to the rest of the net, wouldn't you? And that means that you must make yourself understood by the routers, no? And if the backbone routers switch to some protocol that you just ripped out of the kernel, you are going to find some problems in your life, isn't that so?
Kaa
Re:Internet != America (Score:1)
That is certainly true, but does it really matter? There are of course many of us
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
No, but under new laws, the FBI will use their new power to constantly scan for illegal activity.
Currently, new cellular protocols are requiring that the FBI be allocated 10% of the total infrastructure for wiretapping. Also, the FBI will be able to "listen" in on active conversations.. they will also be able to use inactive cell phones as microphones.
Now, 10% is a HECK of alot of bandwidth. 1% would be more feasable. But 10% would mean that 1 of 10 people will activly be tapped. And you can bet your buns that the FBI will tap tap tap.
Now, would you say that 10% of the population who carries cell phones are law breakers?
In other words, does the civil BENIFIT of indescriminatly wiretapping match the potential lowering of criminal actions? Will all conversations eventually be public record? Would political views, first amendment rights, and religeous beliefs be genuinly protected? What kind of watermarking or proof will we have that cellular monitoring presented in court is indeed unaltered?
Pan
slippery slope...must hang on...aahhhhhh! *splat* (Score:1)
In my humble opinion, the writers of the Bill of Rights would consider built-in wiretap capability not only a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but possibly also the Third and Fifth -- against compelling persons to quarter troops in their houses and compelling persons to testify against themselves.
The existence of a court order does not remove the fact that an individual having an expectation of privacy acts very differently than when that expectation is not there. Do individuals tell falsehoods in private conversation? In many cases, yes.
In my opinion, wiretapping is the magic bullet for LEAs in the way that polygraphs were until they were proven unreliable and unnecessary. Is wiretapping *necessary*, even if it is reliable? I doubt that it is. Such invasive procedures should be difficult and costly. Making invasion of privacy cheap and convenient will only make it ubiquitous. So many things in our society are done for the convenience of those in control, and not for the well-being of individuals. (As an example, look at how hospitals treat women in labor -- everything designed to make medical intervention convenient, nothing designed to make it unnecessary.)
Re:Bill of Rights. (Score:1)
it's impossible to predetermine which communications can be reasonably searched, all must be made searchable,
At least, that's how the argument goes. Where's the flaw in it?
If I may take a stab at this...
Even with easily tappable communications, there is nothing preventing the parties trying to communicate from encrypting the communication. In this case, being able to tap it gains the police nothing. Having the legal right to tap a communication does not guarantee the actual ability to listen in.
That (I think) is the flaw. Since it's impossible to predetermine which communications can be actually searched, why make any of them searchable? It's all a matter of whose life is going to be made easier: the police or the citizens (both good and bad). The police vote for the police. I myself favor the citizens.
I already have relatives who refuse to share certain political beliefs over the phone, due to the possibility of police wiretaps. Even though expressing such beliefs is supposedly protected as free speech, the climate in this country is already to the point where people are afraid to speak. Is giving the police another avenue to monitor everyone more important than having a climate where people aren't afraid to speak their minds?
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
What really bugs me is that the supreme court has declared that corporations have more rights in court than illegal immigrants.
Re:Bill of Rights. (Score:1)
Thus, they are searchable anyways. The search doesn't require wiretapping. Therefore wiretapping is not needed.
Just because the government has the right to search my property in a court-mandated fashion does not give them the right to keep me from hiding something (Personal papers, money, or whatever), or making door-locks illegal.
clarification (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:1)
--
Re:Bill of Rights. (Score:2)
First, the Constitution does not specify what *must* be -- only what must *not* be. It permits reasonable searches, but does not make them obligatory.
Since it's impossible to predetermine which communications can be reasonably searched, all must be made searchable...
And here is the flaw. You are saying that everything under the sun must be made searchable and seizurable by the government, in case at some point in time the court system will let it. This implies that if I write some document, encrypt it and destroy the key, I have committed a crime since at some later point the government may present me with a subpoena for this document and I cannot produce it. I don't think that this is how the law works.
To reiterate, the Constitution does not *prohibit* the government from establishing wiretapping facilities, but it also does not *demand* them.
Kaa
Generic Replies to all repliers (Score:1)
3. The NSA and CIA are rather closed, and nobody knows exactly what they do. The FBI, on the other hand, is a large federal law enforcement agency, and everything they do is just as open to the public as whatever your local police may do, i.e. whatever you do not know is to most likely to protect the privacy of the defendants and the integrity of case.
3. Citing Hoover-era FBI tactics as current FBI policy is absurd. It's like saying the army is inches away from running out of their bases and killing native americans. Sure, it happened, and it was terrible. But we live in a different era today. We don't have perfect law enforcement (never will), but we aren't illicitly wiretapping our president -- that's the Mossad's job now ;)
3a. Citing anything ever done by the LAPD as general law enforcement practice by anybody but the LAPD is also absurd. :)BR
Think about it... (Score:1)
Personally, I like the idea... (Score:1)
So, I think that this is a really good first step. Now every packet I have can be monitored and checked. Honestly, I don't care if they do it to me whether I am a criminal or a working class person. Its all just fine with me. Don't think of it as the FBI or the NSA eavesdropping, think of it as your own personal entourage. Every thing I do, whether I type or I talk on the telephone, they can listen to me. That doesn't sound bad... Its comforting really, like the AT&T commercials, but without having to pay for long distance.
Maybe one day I'll be lucky enough to get a barcode stamped on me, or maybe a subdermal implant, either way - if it helps the NSA or the FBI catch the bad guys, it must be a good thing. After all, the FBI and the NSA are the good guys, they would never use any information in an illegal fashion. That is important to me.
Sure their history may house a, well, a few tarnishing events, but that's ok. Everybody makes mistakes, lets not penalize them for that... that would be... unfair, and we want to be fair.
See, I will gladly be compliant... Niether the FBI nor the CIA, nor the NSA have anything to fear from me. I will gladly be a sheep.
Youthful Run-Ins with Authority (Score:2)
We're different; mappers instead of packers, to use another metaphor recently seen on here. One day the Government could decide we're dangerous and should be tracked. Ever see the Sci Fi show about the kid who's killed because his IQ was too high? (Outer Limits, I think it was.) We innately distrust authority because we've seen what idiots buerocrats can be, from the school administration who classified us as "Learning-impared" because we didn't do well in classes that bored us to Pointy-hairs at any given company.
And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Abuses of power within the various three letter agencies are well documented in the states. From the McCarthy witchunts to the surveilance of assorted leaders of the 1960's to the incidents just recently in WACO and Ruby Ridge, the proof is there that you can be eliminated or harassed for the rest of your life if you attract the wrong attention, even if you're innocent of any wrongdoing. The government and its agencies need lots of accountability and lots of roadblocks to keep such abuses to a minimum. And we need to make sure that every government keeps their hands the hell off the Internet, which will one day be the main medium for communication around the world, not because we're not afraid that criminals will use it and leave no tracks in the real world but because we're afraid that the government will use it to, say, silence a whistle blower who is trying to force some accountability.
Re:Encryption (Score:1)
John Gilmore's homepage http://www.toad.com/gnu/index.html has more
about SWAN http://www.toad.com/gnu/swan.html which seems like a good
idea to me. http://www.xs4all.nl/~freeswan/ is the main site. Linux FreeS/WAN
is an implementation of IPSEC & IKE for Linux.
I personally hope that there's a financial privacy (as well as personal privacy)
backlash from all this garbage, for obvious very-selfish reasons.
JMR
Re:Colors on Slashdot? (Score:1)
Stick to the default color scheme, please!!
Re:Shouldn't we build our own protocols? (Score:1)
--
Advertisers: If you attach cookies to your banner ads,
That explains it. (Score:1)
Oh, I understand now. We exist in different reality tunnels.
It must be nice in your reality tunnel... mine kind of sucks.
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
The problem with wiretapping, as I see it, is one of responsibility. In the real world, if the police want to search your home, they have to convince a judge that there's at least some reason to do so. Fair enough. "We want to search John's house because this Frank says John is selling drugs in there". So the police get their warrent and look around. Whether or not John is committing a crime (selling drugs), he KNOWS he's being searched and can see the warrent.
Now, with wiretapping, it's different. The police just want to listen in to what John is saying to his friends. But John doesn't know he's being searched. He has no reason to suspect he's being searched (especially if he hasn't committed a crime). If he doesn't even know he's being searched, how can he verify if a warrent has even been issued?
This is the fundamental problem with wiretapping. If the police show up at your door and ask to search your house and don't have a warrent, you can tell them to go away. You can refuse their request to search. But with wiretapping, you can't refuse because they never even ask (assuming they don't really have a warrent). Now I don't know exactly what sort of safeguards against unwarrented wiretaps there are, but I can imagine there are ways around them if someone wanted to (i.e. for personal gain).
I don't have much issue with warrented wiretaps, because they ARE WARRENTED. Some judge somewhere is convinced that there's at least some good reason to tap your phone. I assume the warrents also specify things like for how long the tap can go on and what sort of data can be gathered. But it's the potential for abuse that I take issue with. Who will stop the abusers? With real-world searches, it's the one being searched (and his/her attorney). But in wiretapping, by definition, the one being searched doesn't know and cannot prevent an illegal wiretap. Depending on the honesty and integrety of law enforcement agencies, though 99% of the time is a good bet, is not good 100% of the time. It's that last 1% that worries me.
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
"I cannot conceive otherwise that the Infinite Father, neither desires, nor requires worship, but that He is infinitely above that."
(not exact wording)
Actually, a lot of Christian doctrine points to this worship thing as not something that is for God, but is actually more of a mental excercise for the worshipper. I know there's language to the contrary in the Bible (I am a jealous God, you shall have no other above me - etc.), but fundamentally, it's the subjugation of one's Free Will to His Will that counts, and worship is more of a path to that end, rather than an end in of itself. Just like Jesse Ventura said; "organized religion is for those with weak minds." But he didn't necessarily say that he was opposed to religion, itself, or God.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
And, he IS the son of a Lawyer. .
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:I'll worry when Bill has a near fatal head inju (Score:1)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
And we're not criminals, are we? Perish the thought!
Re:Encryption (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
1. Is there a legal requirement to support wiretapping (CALEA in USA)?
2. If wiretapping capabilities must be added to certain types of equipment (VOIP), in certain countries, should this be standardized?
3. Should the IETF tailor its protocols to the legal requirements of specific countries?
4. Is wiretapping good or bad?
Some people are confusing the discussion of these issues with a particular position on the issues. Do we start burning people as witches because they discuss the morality of witchcraft?
Many members of the IETF are engineers, some are probably spooks. Protocol design and engineering are performed in an environment that interacts with political and economic factors. You can't make them go away by clicking your heels together three times.
Re:???? sic? (Score:1)
4th amendment (Score:3)
Now, the problem with building in backdoors into the fundamental security of the Internet or any system is that it provides the possibility for abuse by both authorities and third party criminals (as opposed to the criminals who are the authorities). If somebody can get access to that back door they can create endless havoc.
The other problem is that with this back door so readily available, authorities will be very tempted to use the door without warrants. If they think you are a bad guy they can sniff your traffic get enough evidence then go get the warrant to get the rest of your traffic. And don't think they won't do it. There are countless cases of cops using wiretaps illegaly to get information and go after people who otherwise would not be prosecutable. In all likelyhood they would surrpeticiously just sniff all traffic for naughty bits, and nobody would be the wiser because it is all the kind of stuff locked up in the dark recesses of the FBI and NSA headquarters.
Nah I'm not paranoid...
---
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
Before you start spreading rumors, you may want to check your facts. Take a look at this link [fcc.gov] at the FCC's website concerning CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) if you want to find out what is really going on.
---
This will just guarantee encryption for all (Score:1)
Does it really matter? Let's just not let big bro force a back door into everyday encryption, ok?
Jason
Think ten years ahead and see the logic (Score:1)
Most of these appliances will offer no ability to install any extra encryption schemes. It is this data that the FBI is after. Espescially ofcourse the phonecalls, but anything extra is considered to be a nice bonus.
Now, just to be sure, don't think everything will be used against you. Heck, most of you are to insignificant to reckon with. Don't think that if the IETF will not go ahead with aiding the snoopers the battle is won. Just see it in the right perspective. A world filled with IP based appliances, which broadcast data that might be valuable to someone interested in it.
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
Why is it that when some new developements erode an existing zone of privacy, the privacy baseline shifts downward to accomodate them, but when other new developments erode an existing zone of surveillance, special government privileges are demanded to maintain the status quo? Where is it written that technological advance is supposed to be a one-way ratchet, so that the State's pressures are efficiently applied against the individual, but the individual's pressures in the other direction produce nothing but a bit of noise?
Unless you are a criminal, and quite a significant one, you have nothing to fear from the FBI.
Define "criminal". The government scores 0 out of 2 when the questions are "Was Vicki Weaver a criminal?" and "Is Lon Horiuchi a criminal?"
or we can't get the information needed to convict dangerous criminals
Bravo Sierra. The police managed to get the evidence required to convict dangerous criminals when the most advanced communication systems known to man were literally based upon smoke and mirrors.
I hate to be this way, but I feel that some /.ers are law-enforcement luddites. On one hand, they believe technology is great, and we can use it in new and exciting ways. On the other hand, they believe law-enforcement shouldn't be allowed to expand their existing abilities to take new technologies into account.
I believe that the technology of firearms is great. I wouldn't hand a gun to a serial killer. I believe that the technology of automated banking is great. I wouldn't hire someone who just served 2-5 for embezzlement to maintain such a system. I believe that the technology to monitor complex data flows is great. I wouldn't provide the root password to government agencies that have a long and disgraceful record of using the Constitution for a doormat.
What part of this progression eludes you?
/.
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
It is trivially easy to design such a system. Just say no to any form of general built-in tap capability. If the government wants to spy on Joe Blow, it will always be possible for them to send in a black bag man to install a hardware bug or software Trojan Horse on Joe Blow's equipment. Alternatively, monitoring of Van Eck emissions can be performed from anywhere within a hundred yards or so (depending on local conditions and shielding).
Of course, this means a lot of work and a risk of getting caught at it if they do it illegally -- which is a bug for them (hence their Big Brother wish list) but a feature for a free citizenry.
/.
IETF discussion will be on the Net (Score:1)
The question was asked. It's time to find out how to answer it.
yes but... (Score:1)
A quick way away from dominance... (Score:1)
The new threats of encryption and internet manifest new challenges to the NSA and FBI. There have been new challenges emerging every generation since people baked messages into clay envelopes two thousand years ago. We need to sieze creativity to solve the problem, not brute force.
Human nature prefers the easy way of using the advantages we gained from the genius at Bletchy Park, from half a century of great SIGINT, and from one of the largest factories of intelligence operations ever made. Human nature prefers to work with well understood technology and process.
Still.
Our continued survival lies in countering emerging chain by intelligence, guile, and advancement. If we allow our intelligence groups to become lazy, relying on ever great search powers, then they will be useless and clueless when a major threat arises.
If we permit NSA and FBI to have wiretapping capabilities, they will be lazy, useless, and clueless to prevent concerted attacks on the US.
A Devout Capitalist
Re:I'm going to start using... (Score:1)
Network Associates is a member of the Key Recovery Alliance. Check them out: http://www.kra.org. I wont touch anything those fools claim is secure.
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
I'd imagine that as CPU power gets cheaper, encryption will start to pop up in more places. Currently, to serve every copy of Slashdot with public key crypto would be unfeasible. But in ten years, it'll probably be the default. Especially as the usability of things like PGP gets better. (ie, download encrypted data onto palmtop, run pgp there with smart-card crypto, upload back to 'unsecure' desktop if it's unimportant (ie, web surfing, etc)).
This crypto explosion will mean that the contents of most packets will be garbage to a snooper, and anonymous tunneling software could even hide most of the routing info...
So, by all means, let them implement a way to have 'tapped' packets being sent across a router duplicated in the logs on another machine. It'll be used for debugging more than wiretapping.
And, if it's default to sell 'phones' for VOIP that either don't encrypt, or only barely (CLIPPER, etc) encrypt, then this will allow wiretapping. Even if some restrictive country makes these phones mandatory, we're no worse off than we are now, with China, etc. And people in other countries would simply buy secure phones that encrypted the data, much like their email software would encrypt all email.
Hmmmm. In the future, because cell phones have such a huge ammount of memory (for a phone), maybe when you give someone your number, you can IR transfer it to them along with your public key and have *very* secure transmissions (regardless of the technology the telco uses to pass packets along.)
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)
---
Re:Fucking RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!!!!! (Score:1)
And by their behavior in using encryption for both their public and private correspondence, as well as by various public statements they made on the subject, it is clear that at least Washington, Jefferson (inventor of that encryption device called the "Jefferson Wheel"), Franklin, Madison, and Monroe considered communications privacy to be one of those Tenth-Amendment rights.
Re:the problem is who do you trust? (Score:1)
One basic principle in any strategic endeavor: do threat analysis ("How can this be used to attack me?") in addition to intent analysis ("Who has motive to attack me?"). The threat analysis for a tappable IPV6 is decidedly hostile to a free society.
Re:It's inevitable.. (Score:1)
I am assuming you are talking about the Christian Bible and not the Linux Bible. Right?
Re:Lions and Tigers and FBI wiretaps (oh my!!) (Score:1)
Re:Secret wiretapping IS evil (Score:1)
I'm a little converned with there being any circumstance in which you are compelled to give the government a way to decrypt your data.
And, there are forms of encryption designed to allow decryption of the cyphertext into two plaintexts, one decoy, and the other the 'real' plaintext. A user of this software could decrypt the cyphertext of him arranging for the sale of kiddyporn into him talking about church, mom, and apple pie. Or, to avoid suspicion, talking about slightly illegal things, like buying small quantities of dope, or something similarly mundane.
What would theoretically work is if there were two copies of the message made when the machinery was signalled to tap. One encrypted for decryption by the standard recipient, and the other for decryption by the government, and maybe another by the ACLU, or some other uninvolved third-party.
This would work if there was a machine the user didn't own, like in the days of AT&T rental phones. Now the user would simply use a phone that didn't have this hidden tap capability and the government would be SOL. The secret copies would have to be made before encryption, and because paranoid users would insist on rolling their own encryption, we could be pretty sure they wouldn't allow a machine they didn't control to have the unencrypted signal.
And relying on cell-phone makers to add this tech secretly for instance, will never happen. The DVD consortium couldn't keep DVDs secure and that involved reverse engineering. All it would take to ruin the tampered cell-phone idea would be to let the secret out somewhere along the line.
So, it's a good idea, but it'll never happen in hardware, and if you're ever forced to give up your secret keys it'll either 1) accomplish nothing because you'll BS about the real message, or 2) be a major privacy violation.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
--
Re:Is Wiretap Immunity An Absolute Right? (Score:1)