Slashdot Log In
Net Taps Without Warrants?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Fri Sep 14, 2001 05:19 PM
from the not-a-surprise-at-all dept.
from the not-a-surprise-at-all dept.
disappear writes "In the wake of yesterday's threats to cryptography, more ominous news: Wired News reports
that a bill permitting warrantless Internet surveilance has been passed by the Senate." This is just part of the expected and unfortunate backlash from tuesday. The terrorists are winning simply because the govt. can use their threat as a blank check to take away our rights. The worst part is that this will do no good whatsoever. Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Net Taps Without Warrants?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 474 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Backdoors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Backdoors. (Score:4, Insightful)
The counterpoint to that is that they can detect whether or not your data is encrypted. If it's encrypted, they'll decrypt it, and if they can't decrypt it, they've got you on a violation for not using back-doored software.
The counter-counterpoint to that is to just use the backdoored software, but to encrypt what you send through it (2 layers).
Then technicly you are not violating the law. So, if they are stupid enough to pass this law maybe they are not smart enough to consider the possibility that the "plaintext" is not really plaintext.
If they bring you up on charges of nothing other than not using backdoored software, then you know that they decrypted your messages. If that required a warrant, you could get the case thrown out on that technicality alone. Not requiring a warrant makes that defense impossible. I have not had time to digest the bill, but it appears to be written so that they would have to justify that it was in the interest of national security for them to know what you said to your aunt Martha.
Of course, the real terrorists will also use the backdoored software, but they will stego everything they send through it. Well, here on Slashdot, it's almost a truism that these laws don't work... would that it were the same in the larger world.
Who exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple: The FBI is, when they knock on the terrorist doors.
If your computer is caught sending packets that are labeled (e.g. GPG headers) as encrypted, your computer will either be bugged to get your password or seized to search for plaintext secrets. In theory, this will allow terrorists to be subjected to legal scrutiny while they are still conspiring about acts of terrorism but before those acts are committed.
In reality, it won't work that way:
In otherwords, we're giving the government authority to review every law abiding citizen's digital communications, without judicial oversight (the FBI had your email, and you're going to take their word for it that nobody, with or without official permission, looked at it?), and without impairing the ability for lawbreakers to engage in undetected low-bandwidth communications (and you don't exactly need to videoconference to plan a terrorist attack) at all.
Did I miss anything?
I hope not (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with backdoors is that the terrorists might get access to them too, or enemy nations, etc. Or even criminals. Just think, with these master keys, they could eavesdrop on e-commerce transactions protected with SSL and steal credt card numbers...
Not as bad as it sounds (Score:4, Informative)
Many civil liberties are restricted during threats to "National Security." Ever heard of martial law and curfews?
Re:Not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT (Warning: LOTSA legal cites) (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, this is scary stuff. Pay attention to section (E) and you'll see that it only refers to those crimes which 18USC1030(c)(2)(C) applies. From that section:
Now, let's go looking at (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7), for those of you with clean sheets (if you don't have one, you're hosed, as pretty much anything under 18USC1030 gets punished under (c)(2)(C) if you're a repeat offender, as the other portions of (c)(2)(C) point out):
Note that (a)(5)(C) was specificially excluded:
Subtle shading between (a)(5)(B) and (a)(5)(C), but the key is recklessly causing damage versus simply causing damage.
Essentially, going item by item, if you
then you're open to this, according to the law . Now, all the white hats, and an overwelming majority of the grey hats, can likely agree to these conditions. That being said.. There are enough loopholes here to drive a truck through, and I doubt that prosecutors will take the full time to research those specific sections of 18USC1030 which this newfound power would allow them to use. Three cheers to the first person who beats the "slam dunk" case because a prosecutor got a little too zealous in their wiretap and blows the chain of evidence right at the start.
Now, let's look at what this law does NOT cover from 18USC1030. Let's kick it first with (a)(2) and (a)(3).
Wait a second... You can hack (without the non-judicial wiretap, though you're still fux0red under existing law) BANKS, THE GOVERNMENT, AND ANYTHING ELSE, so long as you're not under (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) as well.
Even further, under (a)(6), also not covered under the Anti-Cyberterrorism amendment, you can keep trading passwords (without the non-judicial wiretap--again, you're fux0red under current law though).
In all, it's pretty bad, but they could've done worse. If you give ANYONE the legal authority to wiretap without judicial oversight, you're giving a monkey a loaded revolver. In this case, however, the monkey's more likely to shoot itself than it is to shoot you.
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Re:Question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Kids today. Never teach 'em history.
Perhaps you ought to spend some time reading US history, focusing on government agencies who are supposed to be involved in law enforcement and the like.
During the time J Edgar Hoover headed the FBI, which was founded to focus on interstate crime, he refused to allow it to focus on the Mafia, and pronounced on more than one occasion that there was no such thing; all those high-profile Mafia busts of the thirties and forties were by the US IRS, or by State and Local police acting at the behest of District Attornies or Governors.
What did the FBI spend its time on? Un-American activities! The FBI spent most of the Fifties looking for "Communists" while ignoring the Mafia, and most of the Civil Rights era ignoring racial crimes while harrassing and trying to shut down Martin Luther King.
There's plenty of precedent to make you scared of the BFI getting more rights, because they're more likely to come after citizens exercising their democratic rights than criminals or terrorists.
For that matter, the NSA already have a bottomless budget, Echelon, and virtually no oversight. They have nearly limitless powers. Why didn't they notice this? Why would giving the BFI more power, like the NSA, help?
Conventional and Unconventional Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the Internet was used heavily in this action, and if it would be used heavily by such groups in the future. we all know the security issues involved with using technology (and read that as a privacy issue as well). Its been reported that bin Lauden doesn't use cel phones or other wireless devices any more to keep the US from triangulating or tapping in on his communications. Much as I hate to admit it, these people arn't stupid. Tapping the internet without warrants won't keep them from communicating, they'll go to other methods less easy to tap.
Meanwhile we loose a bit more of our own liberty. There is the first lesson, and likely the terrorist's first victory.
Thats wyat the Supreme court is for (Score:3, Funny)
The congress will push, the courts will push back, and life wil lgo on as it has in the US.
I get the feeling a significant cross section of slashdot just likes to run around hystericly like the sky is falling.
Re:Thats wyat the Supreme court is for (Score:5, Insightful)
That's dead wrong, and life does not just go on as usual for many people in the U.S.. You obviously need to brush up on your history, as an immediate example comes to mind: the Espionage Act of 1917. Passed in support of WW1, it horribly abridged freedom of speech. People were thrown in jail with extremely long sentences for such things as writing communist literature, and one man was beaten to death after being arrested under it. Here's [schoolnet.co.uk] the best web page I could find on it in short notice, but I recommend heading down to the library and finding a good history book.
Totally Unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
Similarly FBI and the Govt would use Carnivore in a similar way, touting its use among the people without deriving anything valuable out of it. And when the war against Bin Laden is over, they would turn it on us, the people. By then, it would be too late. Any efforts to revoke Carnivore would never win, as the Govt would be quick in pointing out that its needed to prevent further bloodshed, and the Congress would happily send Carnivore on its way.
Civil Liberties have been trampled on the ground once again and theres nothing we can do about it right now. Lets stand on the sidelines and watch, for now.
Bye, bye war on drugs (Score:4, Interesting)
"1984", author George Orwell, 1949, ISBN 0-679-41739-7
Any evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a bunch of CRAP. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear XYZ,
Like you, I am aggrieved at the tragic loss of life resulting from the horrendous events of Sept. 11. Every American has been touched by this trauma which will linger forever in the memory of our nation.
Though I want to see the perpetrators of these acts brought to justice, I must beg you not to compromise American civil liberties in your pursuit of justice. The loss of American citizens' ability to move and communicate freely would be a greater casualty than the thousands killed Tuesday morning.
Benjamin Franklin said that those who give up necessary liberties for security deserve neither security nor freedom. I must echo his sentiment. Do not allow our sacred rights of freedom of speech, association or movement to be abridged in the coming days of difficult choices. America's enemies hate us precisely because we are a free and open society, and they fear the potential that that represents. Do not give them the victory they cannot themselves win by destroying the core of our society, our beloved liberties.
God Bless America,
Text of the debate and amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Levin (D-MI) are the only ones asking for restraint and thought before bulling forward with this amendment to the Commerce, State and Justice appropriations bill (which is sure to pass).
I found this very pertinent... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm hoping that one of my USian friends put this in front of the right sets of eyes. Let freedon reign.
Soko
Benjamin Franklin said it best... (Score:5, Interesting)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Terrorists are the perfect enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, terrorism is the perfect threat for those who want to take liberties away. Liberties are always curtailed in wartime (read the Bill of Rights: writs of habeus corpus can be suspended during war) and everyone in Washington is saying that this is a war. But in a normal war there's a clear enemy, and some way of telling when the war is over. Fighting against terrorists, though, there is nothing but a mass of shadows. There's no way of telling when they've all been caught of have given up, so there's no way to tell that the fight is over. That means that there's no time when the liberties that are ignored in the interests of pursuing the war should be reinstated- so they likely never will be. We must fight to preserve them now or we can kiss them goodby forever.
FUD from Wired. Notice the "?" in the Headline. (Score:5, Informative)
It is still very difficult to get a wiretap warrant, both for email and telephones; the burden of proof is extremely high. Now, I'm not saying illegal wiretaps are not done, but it's still just as difficult to get one legally. I'm not in law enforcement, but I'm also not a paranoiac. Mod me down for both acts of reason.:P
jaz
Wrong way of thinking about it ... (Score:4, Insightful)
::flamesuit on:: Actually, that's probably not the reason the gov't wants to ban crypto. Think about it for a second:
Every day thousands of geeks and perhaps dozens of terrorists send back and forth messages that have been encrypted. The geek messages may be frivolous, just simple messages about life and groceries and the kids and other trivial things. Even if they have a right to, there's no real reason for geeks to encode these things. Big Brother doesn't give a rats ass about what you're writing.
Now, make it illegal to encrypt messages (example) and this flow of messages from the geeks will cut of SLIGHTLY. However slight, the decrease in the number of encrypted messages intercepted per day could drop, thus translating into fewer messages that need to be decrypted and thus translating into faster processing time for the NSA (or whoever).
Do I support this? No. But I don't think the
Give the gov't some credit. They're not stupid. Just misguided and corrupt.
The backlash has started. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sixty years ago, out of fear and anger, members of my family, along with thousands of other Canadians and Americans of Japanese descent were put in internment camps. I say this to remind people that, the road from finger pointing and mindless reprisals to invasion of privacy, censorship and suspension of individual freedom is very short indeed. With all the recent media comparisons to Pearl Harbor, I fear that history may be heading in a very disturbing direction.
Vigilance is paramount now, not in looking for scapegoats or suspects, but in watching for government abuses. Don't look back twenty years from now and think "I can't believe such an abuse of civil liberties happened in this country". It may be happening already.
Breeding Complacency (Score:5, Insightful)
Complacency contributed to this disaster. The couple of security exposures I can highlight immediately: 1) You don't have to go through a security checkpoint again when you get off a plane and board a new one. You should. 2) Procedures for pilots handling unruly passengers. Were pilots trained to hole up in the cockpit and land at the nearest airport (And possibly lower the cabin pressure to the point where everyone in the back passes out) when something like this is going on, this incident would never have happened. Cryptography is not the danger, complacency is.
The Internet is already years behind where it should be because the US Crypto Stance has pretty much eliminated the possibility of a commercial software package using cryptography on a large scale. Cryptography is vital for the authentication of identity on the net and this application has gone largely unimplemented. How many illegal stock manipulations would have been prevented if all companies PGP signed all their press releases, for instance? And spam could be all but eliminated if everyone encrypted their E-mail and refused messages not encrypted to their key. It seems to me that lawmakers want to put the genie back into the bottle not by eliminating all crypto software but by eliminating the Internet itself. This is just one of several increasingly unfriendly pieces of legislation introduced recently.
Cracking the back door... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet that within a week or two, the backdoor is cracked, even if there is some 'sealing technique' used in the software. After all, they cracked Microsoft's AARD, and that was pretty thoroughly protected. Within another week, organized crime, Drug Lords, and even terrorists will have access to it.
Once the backdoor is cracked, encryption is effectively worthless for anything but protection against other law-abiding citizens. But that's not the worst.
One of the most essential uses of crypto is SSH, OpenSSH, and the like, so we can administer the machines that make the Internet hum. Even WinNT/Win2k uses an encrypted channel for admin. Except now we're mandated to use only crypto with a backdoor, and the blackhats can open it, too.
No secure remote administration. No secure credit transactions. No Internet. No nuthin. It all falls apart.
The meat of the issue (for me) (Score:3, Interesting)
Warrantless 'National Security' E-Surveillance (Score:3, Insightful)
In Katz v. United States, Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in 'national security cases' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to 'bug' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of 'inherent' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a 'reasonable' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in 'national security cases' than in cases of 'ordinary' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any 'United States person' will be overheard. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
The Senate Can Pass Any Damn Thing It Wants (Score:3, Informative)
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.
If I might rephrase a saying of the 60s. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The enemy know where our weaknesses are. They have analized them carefully. Don't let them use political Akido to use our own force against ourselves.
The only way to preserve freedom is to grant it, and defend it.
KFG
1st ammendment (Score:3, Informative)
Occam's razor: (Score:3)
The cynical answer is "yes, of course they are".
...but sometimes I wonder. You and I both realize that these supposed "countermeasures" are completely meaningless in terms of terrorism, because we're Informed. The general populous is Uninformed.
Let's assume for the moment that the government is Informed. The certainly have the resources, and they have people working for them that know "what's up".
The simplest explanation is that government opprotunists are simply using this as an excuse to take away our civil liberties, so they can more effectively control us.
And to think they could be doing something productive with our tax dollars.
Columnist calls for Draconian Net-crackdown (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02514.html
In an opinion column in the London Daily Telegraph, John Keegan calls
for a combined US/Russian/British invasion of Afghanistan:
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk:80/dt?ac=006026
He then goes on to say, and I quote:
==========
"There are other current movements of which to take note, as yet
insubstantial but certain to gather concrete form. One is the retreat of
human rights lawyers from the forefront of public life. America in a war
mood will have no truck with tender concern for constitutional
safeguards of the liberty of its enemies. The other, which ordinary
Americans will have to learn to bear, is interference with their liberty
of instant electronic access to friends and services."
"The World Trade Centre outrage was co-ordinated on the internet,
without question. If Washington is serious in its determination to
eliminate terrorism, it will have to forbid internet providers to allow
the transmission of encrypted messages - now encoded by public key
ciphers that are unbreakable even by the National Security Agency's
computers - and close down any provider that refuses to comply."
"Uncompliant providers on foreign territory should expect their
buildings to be destroyed by cruise missiles. Once the internet is
implicated in the killing of Americans, its high-rolling days may be
reckoned to be over."
==========
The "Torygraph" is the most conservative of Britain's serious
newspapers, and is edited from (IIRC) the 30th floor of London's tallest
office tower, which overlooks London City Airport, from which STOL
planes take off pointing straight at the tower. I know, I've been there
myself, it scared me then. Their fear is excusable. Their
bloodthirstiness is understandable. Their stupidity is neither.
Ken Brown
Still serving the purpose of democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
CmdrTaco: "Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?"
This is such an obvious and sensible objection that it makes me wonder. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a large part of the U.S. government no longer serves the purpose of democracy. The war may be, not on terrorists, but on the American people. My guess is that it is not conspiracy, but widespread government corruption.
That's the only conclusion that supports all the information. For example, the U.S. CIA trained Osama bin Laden. See the 1998 MSNBC article referenced in the first paragraph of What should be the response to violence? [hevanet.com] where I've tried to pull together some of the facts.
Whenever there is a problem, there seem to be two situations that go together: 1) The U.S. government intelligence agencies say they did not foresee the problem, and 2) the intelligence agencies had a years-long prior involvement with the person who caused the problem. Osama bin Laden is one example of this.
Another example is General Noriega of Panama who had a working relationship with the U.S. CIA for years before he was accused of drug trafficking. Was the exposure of Noriega caused by his not taking orders? A quick Google search on "Noriega General Panama CIA" [google.com] gave a link to a chapter in a book by Noam Chomsky, The invasion of Panama [zmag.org]. Chomsky's book is called What Uncle Sam Really Wants [zmag.org].
Another link on the first Google page was, The Real Drug Lords, A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade [magnet.ch] by William Blum.