The Future of Tech And NSA Wiretaps 643
Tyler Too writes "Is there more to last week's story about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without court review? Ars Technica writes about what's going on behind the curtains with the National Security Agency's technology: 'When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.'"
muddy issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:muddy issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, literally!
Re:muddy issues (Score:2, Funny)
Best 2 out of 3 at Rock, Paper, Scissors
Winner gets to keep the liberties.
Re:muddy issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot-on, Mr. Gilliam!
Some of you guys thought it'd be like Trek. Oh, well. That was a "gimme", so we'd embrace technology as a beneficial end in itself - not just another manifestation of human tool appropriation. Technology won't make a paradise by creating super-abundance. We HAVE super-abundance, where 2% Elite own and control 96% of the resources, wealth and secondary benefits of that abundance. The rest of us fight it out over notions of artificial scarcity. That's CONTROL, baby!
Now, you get to live in the U.S., just like the old DDR! They payed engineers 2-3 times the "worker rate", and bought allegiance there, too! "I'm not worried about the totalitarian state. They pay for my Trabant! Why shouldn't I build eavesdropping equipment? At least we are safe from the evil forces of International Capitalism and the Jew-Bankers!"
Osama is powerless ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Osama is powerless to transform the United States into a totalitarian regime. GW Bush is well on his way.
Far from it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Osama is powerless ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only simpler if you don't take into account the rest of the world who already find our reasons for going into Iraq dubious -- even the ones who still have troops there with us. Take away "bringing democ
Big Brother Bush (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer to the mystery of the NSA snooping scandal - why did they break the law when it was so ludicrously easy to get FISA warrants? - appears to be developing [democratic...ground.com]: they weren't just wiretapping, they were data mining. They were using [cryptome.org] Echelon [hiwaay.net] to 'Able Danger' the whole country (this is Poindexter's Total Information Awareness, which is supposedly dead, in action). The problem is that FISA was enacted prior to the current capability for data mining, and didn't anticipate how ubiquitous it could be. The reason they couldn't use FISA is that they would have had to obtain a FISA warrant for every person in the country. Data mining requires that you follow each link discovered by your snooping, and wouldn't work if it had to be subjected to FISA or the Constitution. The NYT article, now being spun [msn.com] as resisted by the Bush Administration (as if the NYT would publish anything without Rove's say-so), appears to itself be part of the spinning, a limited hang-out to cover up the bigger scandal.
hold on now (Score:3, Interesting)
You dismiss this too lightly.
Re:You'd already be dead (Score:5, Interesting)
Ann Coulter spews hate-filled tirades on an almost daily basis in her widespread column and in her countless network appearances, so she can hardly be considered an oppressed voice crying out in the wilderness. In one of her college stand-up routines, many students stood up and left the hall, prompting Coulter to yell: "Yeah, that's right, leave! The anal sex classes are just down the hall!" That's a little one-liner that would have made the brownshirts proud.
If GWB was half as bad as you make yourself believe he is, you'd already be dead. Michael Moore would be thin...in line for the "Showers" at Bush's Death Camps in West Texas.
No, but under gwb and his executive orders, his government has the power to detain you indefinitely without legal representation and even to outsource you to one of a prision in Guantanamo, Syria, Egypt, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Pakistan and various other countries in Africa and Asia; hey, now that is one distinguished list!
So until we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chambers daily, I suggest you rethink your position and keep your mouth shut.
And
So, go ahead, join what's left of the Taliban if that is what your truly belive.
Wow, spoken like a true west texas brownshirt.
Once we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chamber daily, it's already too late by several years, OBVIOUSLY.
What has happened in every country whose population has allowed its' government to take away its' freedoms for the sake of the illusion of a little safety is that eventually that population loses its' freedom with no benefit of safety. History only repeats itself over and over again because of ignorance. Vincible ignorance. Lazy ignorance. Mediocre ignorance. Ignorance creating fear, and this combination in turn creates a soul-destroying hatred which makes it impossible for meaningful analysis and discussion to take place.
Fortunately, the United States of America on the basis of an incredibly resilient document called The Constitution which cannot be destroyed overnight. But it can be destroyed with some time, a dash of power-crazed corporate whores, and a whole lot of ignorance from the population.
Oh, and speaking of ignorance, the Taliban controls around half of Afghanistan. The other half, the so-called good guys, the Northern Alliance (did you know that's their name, the Northern Alliance?), has in the past four years overseen the biggest bumper crops of opium in Afghanistan's history, most of it exported to Europe and Northern America. Right under the gun barrels of what's left of United States troops in the region.
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Informative)
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, you're creating a false dichotomy: Socialism is wrong, therefore Capitalism is right. Or vice versa. Similarly, one who criticizes certain aspects of capitalism as practiced (concentration of wealth, for example), must be anti-Capitalism. This "All-or-Nothing" thinking is illogical and flawed.
I'm curious as to whether you think the Open Source movement and methodology is "
Re:muddy issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Though sometimes I think a faux monarchical figure head would suit us well. No people should invest so much of their self worth in their elected officials as Americans do in their president. It shouldn't be as hard as it is to say "Bush, you fucked up. You're out. We're going to give some other horses ass a shot.".
Re:muddy issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Insightful)
One famous founding father patriot (Patrick Henry) claimed "Give me Liberty or give me death!".
Another famous founding father patriot (Benjamin Franklin) claimed (and this is oft-quoted here on /.) "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safet
Re:muddy issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:muddy issues (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
We're in charge.
That's the one and only thing that differentiates us from a dictatorship.
The fact that they seem to think that "THEY'RE IN CHARGE" is exactly what's got so many people who love this country so upset at them.
--MarkusQ
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:muddy issues (Score:2)
Terrorist activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they killed the mink farmer, that's just murder. (My point is not to minimize how horrible murder is!) But it's not terrorism.
The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing...
Re:Terrorist activity (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Terrorist activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.
Re:Terrorist activity (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
And some gov'ts terrorize eco groups: France (Score:3, Informative)
Like when France conducted paramilitary operation against Greenpeace, attaching a mine to their boat, killing one crewmember?
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks l
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Interesting)
The National Security Agency is one of the United States' most powerful weapons, able to intercept nearly any communication. Therefore, it is ONLY for use against foreign targets. Even mentioning the name of a US Citizen that was intercepted from a foreign source is extremely tedious. By turning the NSA against the American people, the government has violated the trust of Americans in the agency.
Situations like this could b
muddy issues easily cleared up (Score:3, Interesting)
More importantly, the powers will be abused at EVERYONE. The way Dubya's kind of absolutist self-righteous thinking works, anyone who opposes him is impeding his effectiveness, and therefore deserves to be treated as an enemy. Some people really do see the world in black and white, or "with us or against us", as Dubya put it.
The problem is that there is no black or white in the real world. Every
Re:muddy issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Hm.
The latter publicly advocates terroristic acts (for them, apparently justifiable).
The former, known to fund organizations like Earth First.
So yes, they ARE terrorists or support them significantly. I'm cheering for the US Gov't black helicopters on this one, thanks.
Re:muddy issues (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm. Judicial review disagrees with you. Unfortunitly their opinions matter.
Burning down a house ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Throwing blood on minks is NOT a "terrorist" activity.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.
I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder. Terrorist KILL indiscriminately at civilian targets in order to produce a state of fear. As goofy as they are, none of these liberal radical groups do this.
By the way, it is quite ironic that while the FBI classifies PETA, Greenpeace and ELF as terrorists, they DO NOT classify white supremacist groups who practice para-military operations and gladly sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Turner Diaries".
I have NO DOUBT that the Bush administration is spying on liberal organization by labeling them "terrorists". And I also have no doubt that they are simply asserting another authority that they have not admitted to for domestic calls.
mod down, not insightful (Score:3, Interesting)
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity."
If your intent is to make a person fear you, and hence change their behavior becuae of that fear, you're a terrorist.
About the tapping itself... (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that they did this without even consulting the FISA court is completely illegal, and bypasses the checks and balances of our government. I don't think anything will happen to the prez, but this is really just disgusting.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem. This particular action is worthy of the worst of the Soviet Union. It's as unamerican as you can get -- secretly taking away "oversight" when the oversight mechanism itself was already as secretive as possible, and every bit as accessible as oversight can be. 72 hours AFTER the monitoring isn't enough? There can be no reason for dodging the FISA court, no excuse. If the court wasn't fast enough, he could have extended the FISA approval process to two weeks, or a month. But to remove oversight for the sake of executive secrecy? Is he implying that the FISA judges are leaking secrets to Al Qaeda? Are the oversight boards populated by "terrarists?" I don't even think any of the likely FISA judges are anything but Republicans!
I seriously believe this is treason. This action DEFINES treason. Not some weak "censure" or "impeachment." This is stand-before-a-judge-jury-and-firing-squad serious.
Even worse ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe the Bush administrations definition of fast food as "manufacturing" jobs, you can start speculating what "international" and "terrorist" means.
For instance if you place a domestic long-distance phone call, it could go over a satellite link. Well, orbit is international territory. Therefore using Bush administration verbal gymnastics, this would be an international call. And what about cell phones??? Well, all those signals go into orbit, so that could be an "international"
What about terrorists??? Well we already know that the Bush administration considers unions (the NEA in particular), peace activists and environmental activists as "terrorists". And many Democrats subscribe to ideas of unionism, peace and environmentalism. Indeed they believe anyone who opposes this war is aiding and ebetting terrorists. Ergo, Democrats are terrorists.
And what about any businesses that do businesses in country where there may be terrorists? Couldn't they be terrorists as well. Well I'm sure there is a lot of strategic business information that could be learned from "international" calls by "terrorists".
The fact that Bush refused to go through the FISA court leads you to believe that this court was unlikely to approve the wire taps they wanted. This court has a history of rubber stamping pretty much anything an adminstration wants.
The alternative thought is that Bush is asserting a new right of "presidential supremacy". This basically means that the President can do whatever he wants so long as he claims it is pursuit of his "commander in chief" duties. Frankly, this is the more disturbing option. This is the avenue that Hitler took.
If Congress does NOT oppose these actions, Bush will have successfully established a precedent of violating the law simply because "he feels like it". This would transform GW Bush into a dictator. GW Bush could decide to cancel the next election because of "terrorist threats".
If you are a Republican, please think long and hard about giving your approval to this. Now think whether you would approve this if it was Bill Clinton.
Finally, consider Bush's justification. There have been no terrorist attacks since Bush started the program. Well, consider that from the first WTC attacks in '92, Al Queda made no successfull strikes until 2001. A total of NINE YEARS passed between Al Queda attacks against US territory without a SINGLE illegal wire tap (at least during the Clinton administration).
I would submit that there was PLENTY of intelligence available to the Bush administration to stop attacks. Indeed, the Clinton administration managed to thwart multiple Al Queda attacks against the US without using illegal wire-taps (but no doubt using the legal (and secret) FISA court). John Ashcroft de-prioritized anti-terrorism to just under porn and prostitution.
Richard Clarke was screaming as loud as he could to get access to the President and take anti-terrorism seriously. He was ignored. The intelligence fore-shadowing 9/11 was forestalled. Somehow the Bush administration had managed to bring the US airforce to a state of unreadiness whereby it could not intercept a jumbo jet.
Please Republicans, take your party and your Constitution seriously. This man is dragging your party into ignominy. If you are a patriot you MUST support checks and balance. The President is NOT an elected king. The Presidents job is to respect and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President cannot just "make up" laws.
If you don't support checking the president's power, you are a fascist. If you don't like that label, than you need to change your position. You will bring this country to a state of civil war against those of us who will NOT bear a President affecting the same transformation on the US as Hitler did to Germany.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not endorsing this in any way at all, in fact I'm ashamed that he did this, but you are saying that this is worse than murdering 15 million of your own people and depriving them of property and liberty as well? I understand this is a bad thing, but acting in this polarized manner is exactly why today's political climate is as vicious and childish as it is.
But they never START with that (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not endorsing this in any way at all, in fact I'm ashamed that he did this, but you are saying that this is worse than murdering 15 million of your own people and depriving them of property and liberty as well? I understand this is a bad thing, but acting in this polarized manner is exactly why today's political climate is as vicious and childish as it is.
But the problem is, they never start with killing 15 million people (side note: it doesn't matter "who's people" they are). They start with a little spying here, a little bending the rules there. Lie a bit a cause a few tens of thousands of people to die. Get your people into the positions of power, eviscerate the press (if it hasn't rolled over already). Come to some accommodation with the "opposition" ("play it our way or we'll ruin you" is always popular).
In short, make it so that no one dares move against you.
Then you can kill 15 million people, or even twenty if you're in the mood.
--MarkusQ
P.S. The polarization isn't causing the problem. The polarization is a consequence of some people realizing what is going on, and others squeezing their eyes shut and hoping it goes away.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiot.
The concern is NOT about whether or not the standard for suspicion is too low for this administration, the concern is that THEY BROKE THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION by authorizing ILLEGAL SEARCHES!!!
Go and READ the Constitution, its the FOURTH AMENDMENT. No unreasonable search and seizure. Which is EX
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's take a look at that Executive Order, shall we?
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Oh, so this Executive Order is not going AGAINST FISA, it is actually stating that
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Informative)
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, whoever said that was way out of line. Americans may fight tooth and nail for the right to torture people, strap electrodes to their balls and shove sticks up their asses, but the guy in a black suit here tells me to tell you that the official line is that the CIA planes flying in Europe do not, in fact, travel to Siberia (which is incidentally in Asia), and they disavow any knowlege of anyone named Sergy.
Did you know that Cl
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Interesting)
So far I have listened carefully for any rational justification from the Bush administration, and the ONLY thing I've heard is vague assurances [cnn.com] that "I've got the authority to do this; it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and we're guarding your civil liberties." And some bogeyman story from Cheney that the measures "saved thousands of lives." I'm sorry if you take this as partisan, but this administration doesn't have the credibility to make unsubstantiated claims like that any more.
What I'm eagerly awaiting is some rational explanation of why the President thought he had the legal right to do this. If he can present a plausible argument, the next step would be to pass a new law to convince him otherwise. But if he clings to the vague notion that wartime places him above the law, what is to be done?
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this exactly right? As a war-time Commander-in-Chief, the President has the duty to do everything possible to protect US citizens from the enemy. Of course, a few key definitions have been re-defined by this Administration in recent years:
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Funny)
BUT
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't stupid. They could easily have gone to the judges within 72 hours if this were normal wiretapping. It's not.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Except Bush claimed they only used this to spy on 500 people w/ what he claims were al queda ties. If that were so, they could easily have gotten 500 approvals under FISA.
So if what you're claiming is the reason, then it's an indirect admission from Bush that they were spying on far more than 500 people.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:2)
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Informative)
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
George W Bush
April 20, 2004
Here is his full statement from that day:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-38
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Needed + Useful) != Legal
On top of that, it clearly falls into line with the supreme court's standards for intellgence (must be linked to a foreign power) as well as historical executive orders issued by Clinton, Regean and Carter and even then can easily be read into the 9/11 bills.
You cannot make up new laws and "read them into" real laws that have actually been passed. Democracy doesn't work that way.
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a law that specifically forbids spying on American citizens without a court order, in this case an exceptionally easy to get court order. The fact that they didn't do so tells me that they were doing more than conducting surveillence on suspected terrorists and have moved on to spying on political enemies.
What other reason can you think of?
Re:About the tapping itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing new here... move along. (Score:5, Informative)
This really isn't anything new. In fact Carter used the Exact same Authority [fas.org] that Bush is using now. That executive order became Executive Order 12333 under Reagan in 1981. Gorelick also stated that Clinton used the same authority. From a CATO Report:
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
FISA itself has ruled that:t ml?id=110007703 [opinionjournal.com]
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
Bush also pointed out that the 9/11 resolution gave him additional authority. Here is the verbage:
"use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons [...] "
Isn't the question though... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignoring civil liberties is almost never warranted, and every time we do it, it turns out that not only do we regret it, but most important *it was never necessary to do in the first case*.
Didn't we learn anything from the internment of Japanese citzens during WWII?
Re:Isn't the question though... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the article in question is to believed, and they are scanning 1% of all US calls, they probably aren't distinguishing between foreign and citizen conversations. They're simply eavedropping on everybody and then trying to figure out what's going on.
No, the original article stated that this could cover "hundreds or maybe thousands" of people. 1% of all US calls is completly bogus. Even the NYT makes the provisos that this covers international calls that originate or terminate in the US. Hardly 1%.
Ignoring
Office of Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
A better question might be: "Did we learn anything from the use of the 'Office of Censorship' which opened and read every international letter, postcard, package, telegram, or telephone call sent or received by US citizens from 1941-1945?" The answer to that would be a "Yes, it worked." Spies and sabateurs were caught. It was effective. And the program was terminateed when no longer needed in 1945.
Re:Office of Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
And the program was terminateed when no longer needed in 1945.
So, as soon as we've defeated all the terrorists, we get back our civil rights? How long will that take?
Re:Office of Censorship (Score:3, Funny)
We'll let you know when we've finished with the war on drugs.
Just sit tight. This shouldn't take too long.
Re:Office of Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the question though... (Score:3, Funny)
"NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one!"
Re:Nothing new here... move along. (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new here... move along. (Score:5, Interesting)
[["Now, by the way," he said, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think 'Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
That certainly seems to be different from what Bush is saying now -- that over the past three years, he has authorized and repeatedly reauthorized the "interception" of communications without warrants.]]
Re:Nothing new here... move along. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's when you don't count the top secret warrantless taps, which they weren't talking about because they're top secret
Factual error (Score:4, Interesting)
How about a PGP phone? (Score:2, Interesting)
We begin the call in the clear. We tell each other our public encryption key.
Go silent and key in the other parties public key.
Begin speaking again and the voices are encrypted using the public keys.
On the receiving end, the encrypted packets are decrypted using the private keys.
There we have a phone call that's impossible to tap.
Re:How about a PGP phone? (Score:2)
NSA is probably a decade ahead technology-wise - so if they don't yet have quantum computing they have something pretty darn fast to crack your scheme. Your solution just changes detection from immediate to postponed, which is probably Good Enough(tm) since I doubt the first telephone call a terrorist will make is going to be "I'm about the push the button."
Re:How about a PGP phone? (Score:5, Informative)
The only slightly tricky part of this is that the NSA have to convincingly imitate the other person when you're exchanging keys.
Classic Man-in-the-middle attack; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_middle [wikipedia.org]
Re:How about a PGP phone? (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKI [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGP [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPG [wikipedia.org]
Re:How about a PGP phone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, it's right on:
Let's use a conversation between Andrew and Charles, aka A and C... Now, assume I'm some ill-willed person named Bob, aka B that wants to play a man in the middle attack on A and C. If I can convince A that I'm C and C that I'm A initially, before they exchange public keys as the OP stated, I'm home free. Why? It should be clear... I give my public key to both A and C and they both give me their public keys. I can, therefore, receive messages from both (and decrypt them using my private key) and send messages to both A and C, using their public keys. So, A sends me a message encoded with my public key, I decrypt it, store the contents and then re-encrypt it with C's public key and send it along to C, etc. A B C but both A and C think they're talking directly to each other.
Prior exchange, out of band, of the public keys would make the man in the middle attack harder to do.
When the truth comes out (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll be pushing 70, at a minimum, and the technology will seem quaint, though cool from a historical perspective.
Soft Triggers... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't think this is valuable, go read a book on Enigma and find out how much exactly reading your opponents mail helps.
However technologies such as this are not covered by FISA. I think it would have been better to revise FISA to cover technologies such as this, but non-withstanding that, it's really nothing new in terms of excercise of power then anything Clinton or even Carter did.
Like Echelon? (Score:2)
I'm not 100% sure how this is different from Echelon except for the fact that they're intercepting calls originating
Other Taps (Score:2)
Slashdot taps - ???
The technology behind it all (Score:3, Informative)
Wartime?? (Score:2, Insightful)
but we keep hearing we are at war with terrorists, no body is safe.
I know there is a large imminent terrorist threat, but is this a war or more just a large unkown fear placed by the administration onto the population. So many people are fearful of nothing, they don't understand whats going on or why it needs to be done & the more it all goes on people are getting more and more frustra
Impeachment proceedings forthcoming? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anybody have a cache or text of referenced article (Score:3, Informative)
and the article is not in the google cache.
Re:Anybody have a cache or text of referenced arti (Score:3, Informative)
Sadly, Arstechnica does not currently appear in DNS space visible from New Zealand, as of a few hours ago. I have retreived an IP address from cache and tried to traceroute to it, but no joy.
I too would like to see a cached copy. Anyone?
Vik
The question is, WHAT did they want to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
The FISA court has only turned the government down, what, twenty times in thirty years? And the law allows them to wiretap first and get court approval afterwards... and if the court turns them down they can appeal to another secret court, and if that court turns them down they can appeal to the Supreme Court, meeting in secret session with only the government in attendance.
The mind boggles. What could they possibly have been afraid to take to FISA court?
Re:The question is, WHAT did they want to do... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, even less than that. Quoting Bruce Schneier: "In all that time, only four warrant requests were ever rejected: all in 2003." And "all that time" here actually does refer to the entire period of time where that secret kangaroo court existed.
Probably something like Watergate (Score:3, Interesting)
For those that haven't been keeping up... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kein Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kein Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
George W Bush
April 20, 2004
Here is his full statement from that day:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-38
Re:Make Your Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Make Your Choice (Score:2, Interesting)
Make Yours (Score:3, Insightful)
To directly respond to you, lemme put it like this:
If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The
It's like GW Bush says .... (Score:3, Insightful)
"They hate us for our freedom" - GW Bush
Well if they hate us because we are free and have liberties from a totalitarian government, than taking away freedoms for the sake of FIGHTING terrorists affectively accomplishes there goal.
Well, that's GW Bush's world. Which tells you he doesn't think very long about keeping a consistent line of values and reasoning.
Don't kid yourself. The terrorists hate us because we're up in their business. They want us out of the Middle East. Increasing our presense in the Mi
Re:Make Yours (Score:3, Insightful)
USA! USA! USA! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:USA! USA! USA! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:USA! USA! USA! (Score:3, Insightful)
If we believe that we can defeat terrorism by reducing privacy, maybe the first place we should open up is the nation's largest employer [federaltimes.com], and no, it isn't Walmart. Perhaps if we had greater openness on the part of this group, it would lead to a stronger democracy and less terrorism. Isn't democracy defined as public understanding and participation in government?
I think the Patriot Act would be fine if it worked both w
Re:Thank You for Wiretapping (Score:5, Insightful)
"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
WOW, talking about taking it out of context!
The court was talking about executive branch's ability to gather intelligence on FOREIGN SOIL!!! They deemed that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to foreign governments and their agents. Which is the correct reading and MOST of us here would agree to.
What the courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled against is using that power on US CITIZENS! In fact FISA specifically guards against and makes that illegal. To balance that it makes it easier for authorities to get secret warrants and allows warrantless searches within the first 15 days of a war and allow agents obtain warrant AFTER the tap.
They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
LIAR!!! Do you have security clearance? Have you seen the list of warrantless searches? No? Then how do you know? Oh because Bush said so? Oh, and they also said they didn't use Patriot Act on non-terrorist groups and guess what? They used it on Peace groups and PETA!
But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
LIAR!!! Were you there when they were briefed? No? Then how the FUCK do you know? EVERY senator (Republican & Democrat) said they did not get complete information on this. But you KNOW they are lying??
And NO, this is not a reason to hide things! It is a DAMN GOOD REASON TO NOT HIDE things!!! Because if they didn't then Bush would have some RECORD to bolster his statements.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
Man you are just a walking LYINGPALOOZA!!! You mean to tell me that Al Queda DID NOT suspect that this government was TAPPING EVERY PHONE call? Hello? Govt has been tapping Al Queda since the mid-80's. Are you REALLY that dumb to think that Al Queda was SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YA to find this out from NY Times?
Not only are you a liar, you are dumb too...
Re:The Government Hoax (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:there has to be more to it (Score:3, Interesting)
Another possible reason was the taps were on political opponents. You don't want someone outside your circle to know what is going on if you are engaged in criminal activity.
I wonder if McCain and Kerry were monitored by NSA?
Re:Your right to what (Score:3, Interesting)
Roll over?
That's where your "defence of liberty" kicks in. Of course, tinpot dictators won't like that one bit and will try to eliminate your ability to covertly take the country back.
From the outside looking in, I see the process is probably already underway.
Vik
Re:Someone please mod the parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's another of my favorite arguments from these morons: "Bush briefed congress! Including Democrats!" So? Indict all of the treasonous fuckers. "Tu quoque" is never a valid defense.