More on Cisco Building Surveillance into Routers 469
An anonymous reader writes "The company recently published a proposal that describes how it plans to embed 'lawful interception' capability into its products. Among the highlights: Eavesdropping 'must be undetectable,' and multiple police agencies conducting simultaneous wiretaps must not learn of one another. If an Internet provider uses encryption to preserve its customers' privacy and has access to the encryption keys, it must turn over the intercepted communications to police in a descrambled form." See our earlier story and the RFC for background.
Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
As it says though, don't blame Cisco. If they didn't do it, sure as shootin' someone else would. Blame Ashcroft. Hopefully Cisco will find a way to build auditing tools into this to help promote responsible use.
So, I guess that means... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bummer...
Undetectable built-in backdoor (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens when a black hat gets in?
Answer: a completely open router that acts like none of his packets have the "evil bit" set.
Really, this is starting to worry me. If it's all undetectable, and is built in, how is this different from the telescreens in 1984? Big Brother is reading your packets!
Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:5, Insightful)
"They" can already get IP logs and such that reveal a lot even without access to the information contained in the packets. Traffic analysis is a very powerful tool. The only people who would really stand a lot to lose from this would be the music and/or warez traders. Warez isn't that big a deal, and music copying isn't a big criminal deal here in Canada.
*shrug* Another cash grab. Hope someone 0wns the system good and makes Cisco look stupid. Oh, wait, DMCA. Nevermind.
Re:This makes me wet!! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:you want privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that law enforcement agencies are significantly motivated by *politics* -- which may or may not be what's in the best interests of national security, personal liberty, or justice. Today it's Arab terrorists they're targeting. But, perhaps if the recording industry pumps some more money into congress, they'll start locking up college kids for duping Metallica songs.
Locking up real, bone-fide terrorists is fine by me -- indeed, I encourage and support it. But giving some beaurocrat with a hair up his ass more power to invade my privacy is not the way to do it.
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Insightful)
...because the loss of privacy leads to victimisation.
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But Inspector Plod is watching you anyway, and hey, he sees you downloading an interesting piece of porn.
Oh! It turns out you like watching [insert odd sex act here]. He guesses that might mean you are a member of [potentially embarrassing minority group]. He then uses this evidence to make your life hell.
Political groups can use these increased surveillance powers to spy on their opponents. Everyone ends up feeling "watched" and suddenly no-one trusts anyone anymore.
Protect your privacy while you still can.
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, no. We're basically one Supreme Court ruling away from losing substancial liberties -- free speech, free assembly, privacy in our homes and bedrooms, free communication... not to mention second amendment rights, abortion, etc... Be afraid... and for God's sake, don't vote Republican.
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big brother (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow, this misses the mark. Privacy isn't explictly written into the constitution, although it is often claimed from the forth and tenth amdendments. That doesn't matter because this is only to be use for lawful warrents.
Here's the forth, since you don't seem to have read it recently.
As bad as it sounds, it IS their product (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, tell them why you wont buy their product and choose a competitor that hasn't vowed to violate their users privacy rights.
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
When will using any sort of encryption however trivial in form or use cause a knock at your door?
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay, another ignorant, there are certainly an abundance of people on slashdot who have the "I have nothing to hide" mentality.
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Re:Luckily, we have alternatives (Score:2, Insightful)
I think encryption would be the best alternative. E-mails, web traffic, heck, even DNS queries
Re:what about != U.S.A. ? (Score:1, Insightful)
As many
Nevermind our airline industry, where over the top bullshit security, crushing background checks, overexpensive faire, et al., has led to a truly burgeoning industry. (Just overlook all those backruptcies and multiple billionaire dollar government bailouts.)
So shut up, bend over, and take it. We already own you, you just haven't figured it out yet.
(The above is hugely sarcastic.)
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really see how this is a problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess, to me, this really isn't a huge deal, just an easier way for the cops to do their job.
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as John Ashcroft deserves round condemnation for his leading the charge to trample fourth amendment rights, I don't think he's necessarily to blame here.
IIRC, law enforcement has for years, if not decades, worked with telephone carriers so that wiretapping was a technical possibility that could be exercised when it was needed during the course of an ongoing criminal investigation.
That was back in the old days when a court order was necessary to establish that kind of eavesdropping. Now, of course, the criterion for the U.S. government listening in on private citizens is less stringent.
I agree with the earlier poster, though. There's no reason why an SSL session can't be used to safeguard the privacy of individuals.
Once again, a heavy-handed policy will needlessly sacrifice privacy for a majority of law-abiding citizens. These measures will achieve the admirable goal of keeping tabs on that large class of dangerous criminals, Terrorist That Are Too Stupid. [The policy makers responsible for this kind of bad legislation and technological half measures should stop making the mistake of assessing the intellect of terrorists based on the intellect people like themselves, clicking away on Outlook attachments, being in Shock and Awe at the results, etc.]
I'm almost sorry to point out technical deficiencies. The obvious solution- you can see this coming - is to impose even more restrictive and more instrusive monitoring, to outlaw SSL unless it is "to an authorized commercial provider", etc.
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Insightful)
So then Inspector Plod duly notes this. Later, when you speak out on a public issue unpopular with Inspector Plod's superiors, your affection for [insert odd sex act] is mysteriously leaked to the media.
You might want to ask Scott Ritter [nydailynews.com] about a misdemeanor "sealed" arrest record that strangely became public knowledge after he publicly criticized recent Iraq policies.
Re:multiple hidden wiretaps... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you have access to an ISP and jack in a laptop with its NIC in promiscuous mode, you can pretty much already collect the same stuff.
Answer: nothing.
Your internet connection is not secure and never was.
Re:Big brother (Score:2, Insightful)
Its too late, they're already in there and until people start feeling secure again they are not likely to let the Dems have control again(not that they are some perfect bunch). You see the people in control now are experts at creating fear and panic. Its in their best interests to make you feel insecure and that police rights are much more important than civil liberties. Republicans are like pigs in shit right now and the police state being setup now is going to take decades to dismantle if ever.
Those conspiracy nuts were right all along, they were just off by a few years.
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:1, Insightful)
- comunix
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:4, Insightful)
In Scott Ritter's case, he was accused propositioned sex from (who he thought) an underage girl over the internet. In fact it was an undercover police officer.
Either the charges are true, or they aren't. If they are true, Ritter should go to prison. If they aren't, then his name is cleared. Otherwise, from your example, Inspector Plod could just make up any old charge he wanted to and "leak it to the media" anyway.
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that I didn't advocate the violent overthrow of the government, only revolution. Big difference. I've been advocating that publicly for several years.
Incremental changes to our completely hosed system doesn't cut it. The Constitution was a fine document, too bad it wasn't even 20 years before it was spoilt by the greed of men.
Re:it only bothers the unknowing honest. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ridiculous. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're wondering why Cisco - who has enough money to buy just about anyone except for Microsoft or Motherfucking Fujitsu Heavy Industries - is bothering to implement this particular technology, consider the above.
"The most cigarettes."
Re:Big brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... Both sides do that, the right-wing zealots and the left-wing whackos.
Why do unshared views... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not leagally required (Score:2, Insightful)
The bad thing is that some parts of the internet infrastructure, especially in other countries, are owned by goverments. This will lead to the governments having more oversight without making a official requests.
Imagine those communites in America that were so greatful that their municipal government stepped up and provided them with subsidized fiber access. Will they be so greatful when systems like these get employed so local law enforcement gets to observe them?
Makes me feel like when Verizon turned my records over to the RIAA.
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: "You're stupid, just like all the other people that don't agree with me.".
You say pirate software, sure it's illegal. But what I visited web sites or downloaded materials related to religions? or sexuality? completly legal materials. And imagine an agent, who has his own moral views and decide he dosen't agree with what you are doing, even tho is completly legal, he can make your life a living hell, this goes for most everything, our privacy is the most important part of our freedom, because other people don't always share our views. Especially on very controversial issues.
Translation: "An authority exists which has the potential to abuse it's power, therefore this authority must be kept weak by other methods, particularly ignorance."
This argument can be applied to remove any law enforcement. Yes, officers with bad attitudes can harass people for any number of reasons, race, sexual preference, or maybe they just got cutoff by a different white Honda on the way to the station this morning. Each of the previous three examples is wrong (as any crime), will always happen (as any crime) and should be punished (as any crime). Trust in law enforcement is a cornerstone of our society and should exist without all of us covering our tracks in daily life like criminals.
I'll go ahead and assume you're just a youngin, because any adult in his/her right mind knows this, and knows that the ability to believe in what you want is the real freedom, without having people in power being able to discriminate.
Translation: "I couldn't come up with any better arguments so I'm going to resort to name calling again."
Look, I understand that power corrupts. I strongly support individual rights and personal freedoms. But I would prefer to have these freedoms not through the furtive actions of looking over my shoulder to make sure no one is watching, but by the pervasive understanding throughout our society that we respect and even support one another's freedoms. To paraphrase an earlier patriot, I may not agree with what you (legally) do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it!
Note: I will also defend your right to resort to name calling, though I similarly reserve the right to hold it up to public ridicule. Done and done.
Re:Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're passing large amounts of data around that would attract the attention of people who could get a lawful intercept warrant, then I would assume you are smart enough to ...
If you read "Fahrenheit 451" and "This Perfect Day" at the library in the same month, you get your Subversive++ mark in some Fed profile, but you can't find out about it. That's used as justification to a rubber-stamp Justice-R-Us clerk to get a crypto wiretap.
You order a copy of "Linux Exposed!" from Amazon. Hacker++.
You have to fly to an ailing grandmother who had a stroke. You don't know how long you'll be there, so you make it one way. Terrorist++.
You browse a MILF site and there's an image of someone who ain't a MILF. Paedo++.
You get your regular results back from the community clinic. They note some kidney anomalies. AIDS++.
Now, none of these conclusions are justified from the evidence, but they are just "mining." Sure, they'll do proper analysis later. Sure, you'll look like a normal rightful citizen when they trot out all this data in court (or worse, a secret grand jury).
If you don't know what they're seeing about you, how can you possibly guess what conclusions to which they're jumping?
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy your cheap $100 or so crypto accelerator [powercrypt.com] now, and learn how to use that OpenSSL CA.sh or CA.pl script [openssl.org]. When you need it, set up TRANSPORT MODE IPSec ESP with isakmpd or PGPNet [uni-erlangen.de] or racoon [kame.net].
Use PGP/GPG. I might be persuaded to help you. Whine, whine, whine, gets you NOWHERE. Roll up your sleeves and get to work or get comfortable like a victim. It's your choice.
The only defense we have is to claim that they cannot require us to communicate in plaintext without violating the first, third, or fifth amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If you're not an American, pass it on: get all your friends to pick up a gun and don't put them down until you get your own Bill of Rights. If you're a pacifist, sit down and don't get up until you get one. Feel free to copy the American version.
Look at the XBone [isi.edu], and think about the possibilities! Don't pay your ISP to snoop on you. If there was snooping, there should ALWAYS be an audit trail to track WHO SNOOPED WHAT, after the fact, so that there is accountability for the violation of basic right to privacy WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LAW (IMnsHO).
Re:Since when does LAWFUL intercept mean "Orwellia (Score:5, Insightful)
This government of ours is acquiring ridiculous amounts of power and the freedom to do anything they want with it. This is simply unacceptable.
Real people, who sometimes commit very real crimes, use it, too
Fine. If that is the case, the cops can go get a fucking warrant and actually perform some effort finding evidence. Forcing people to help the feds hoover up potentially incriminating data about _everyone_ is insane. Absolutely nobody would think it a good idea to put master-key capability into locks or bank vaults that only our Beloved Leaders could use. This sort of all-pervasive surveillance combined with the sheer stupidity of current tech laws is a very, very bad combination. The laws cannot be accurately or totally enforced, so they'll be used only for political or corporate pissing matches like the DMCA has been.
Re: ain't so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, according to the article, Ritter is alleged to have "had a sexual discussion." This is not at all the same as propositioning.
Was he tried? Was he found guilty? The article doesn't say. What it does say is "The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal."
In this country, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So accordng to the information provided, Ritter is currently innocent of the charges, and likely to remain that way.
There is no reason to release the arrest record, and in fact County officials refused to release the arrest record. In such cases its unethical and likely illegal to release the arrest record.
This leak sounds to me more like the tactics of a police state than a democracy that values freedom. Which is the greater crime; Ritter's alleged misdemeanor, or the leak? Do you think this leak will even be investigated? I'm not holding my breath.
Cisco and the home market... (Score:2, Insightful)
So "they" can then monitor home users directly?
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh this should be funny (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're living in a dream world. Hey, I agree with you, but hell will freeze over before we "respect and even support one another's freedoms." Don't go taking my privacy away based on some fantasy that it will bring about a wonderful revolution in attitude, where everyone is happy and the world is like a Care Bear movie.
Life doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
The examples given thus far have been tame. "Some cop will harass you because he doesn't agree with your views." Wait until you start doing serious research on, say, abortion. You post anonymous messages on forums because you've knocked your girlfriend up and need advice on how to abort. Someone with access to the monitoring equipment decides he doesn't like that, so he has the both of you killed.
Don't think it could happen? There are people on both sides of every major debate who will kill you to protect their interests. I believe the murdered abortion doctors are a testament to that.
No, I'm sorry, but your fantasy world doesn't exist, and it never will. You may defend my freedoms, but that doesn't mean my neighbor will. I may trust you, but when I have no privacy, I have to trust everyone - and society has shown time and time again that an awful lot of people aren't trustworthy.
Re:Big brother (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no lapdogging by Cisco or Cisco's customers.
The law requires that Cisco's customers use eavesdrop-capbble gear, or get they azz shut the fuck down.
Cisco is providing a valuable service to those ISPs.
Now, you may not like the fact that your ISP is required to provide eavesdropping capability. Your ISP may not like the fact that they're required to provide eavesdropping capability. It is, however, the law. If your ISP doesn't comply, it will face enormous fines collected by men with guns, or it will be shut down by men with guns. So your ISP has a need to purchase eavesdrop-capable gear on the open market, and Cisco fills that need.
If you think the law's unjust, you're free to set up your own ISP and refuse to provide wiretap support as an act of civil disobedience.
But until then, it's literally none of your business. In the meantime, consider that compliance with laws - whether "just" or "unjust" - is not an optional thing. If it were, they'd be called "suggestions", not "laws".
> Isn't our privacy guaranteed within the constitution preventing actions anywhere near this?
In a word, No.
> Shouldn't simple encryption be able to circumvent the schemes that are being implemented into the hardware?
Yes. But knowing who a bad guy is talking to is often every bit as useful as knowing what was said.
Re:Big brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Which scares the hell out of me. I know what little computer geeks do with this information. They sift through it. They keep tabs on people they like or don't like. Given access to this sort of data, they will abuse it. I know the little geeks do this because I am one. I wouldn't trust me with access to the Internet logs of an entire ISP. Why should I trust anyone else? It'd be too tempting to play with. "Hmmm, I wonder what kind of weird things so-and-so is into? Let's just take a peek at his account..."
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
US is one of the most un-democratic countries I have been to, esp when it comes to free speech which is almost non-existent in this country. Free speech is good if you agree with the ruling parties, i.e either with the democrats or the republicans. If your views are not in this line, there is no free-speech. Besides, the US has been a police state for many years now. They violate basic human rights on a daily basis. The impose death penalty on minors. They throw you in jail for failing to pay a traffic ticket or other minor administraive errors.
Talking about democratic rights in the US is a joke. Sad, but true.
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats (also known as liberals and socialists) want to take away the right to bear arms as specifically stated in the US Constitution. They want to take away the right to assemble with persons of your own choice, whether in personal or public settings. They also want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-life, Christian, family-oriented, racist, sexist, anti-homosexual, anti-Hollywood, or anti-Democrat.
Republicans (also known as conservatives and the religious right) want to take away a person's right to privacy in their own home to prevent consensual 'crimes', to include recreational drug use, sexual activity with a willing adult of the same sex, and gambling. They want to limit the freedom of speech and of press, if you want to say anything pro-choice, anti-christian, feminist, empowering to minorities, homosexual, supporting violence, nudity, profanity, obscenity, etc in movies and songs, or anti-Republican.
I don't see a big difference between either party, they are out for control of your lives to the fullest extent of their power. If only we had a third party candidate we could vote for.
Re:Big brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I highly suggest you re-examine your choice in ISP's. You may have missed the second point I was trying to make: they already have the means to do this today! Nearly any enterprise-quality network device has modes of operation that allow snooping of network traffic. There is nothing stopping malicious ISP's from performing these acts right this second. These new "features" simply allow this type of snopping to be done with a high degree of sensitivity to the privacy of other users' data that might otherwise be captured accidentally with the way things are done today.
"Hmmm, I wonder what kind of weird things so-and-so is into? Let's just take a peek at his account..."
This disgusts me. I too have worked for Internet providers, and these privileges were never made available to lowly techs (that were immature enough to act like this). There was more than ample oversight and auditing to prevent this very type of abuse. If your ISP is filled with people like you, I highly suggest you find another ISP now.
And if there are other ISP tech managers reading this, please ask yourself if your guys can or will have access to the tools to perform this type of abuse. If you're hiring high school kiddies, I really hope it's common sense to keep their privileges restricted in this regard.
Re:Don't blame Cisco too quickly (Score:2, Insightful)
"Just following orders."
"If I don't do this, someone else will..."
Re:You Just Execised Your Free Speech Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
While this is technically true, there do seem to be a lot of public pressure to fall in line and not express any dissent. Consider for example the war against Iraq. Healthy and possibly crucial public debate is stifled because everyone should be "showing support for the troops".
Let us not also forget the example set by GWB who has said on several occasions that if you do not side with the US in the war on terror, then you are against the US, and apparently a supporter of the terrorists. This is hardly the sort of environment where debate and free speech will flourish.
You may disagree about the death penalty, but its existence in the U.S. doesn't make the U.S. a police state, anymore than its existence in European nations made them police states until they outlawed it. But that fact certainly seems to have given some Europeans a severe of case of unwarranted moral supremacy.
I agree with your first point, but I disagree with your opinion on the second. I believe that the US has executed minors who are generally not held to the same standards as adults most other places on the planet. Furthermore, while he was still a Governor, GWB refused to consider a plea for clemency in the case of a mentally retarded man who was due for execution. I believe those are the sorts of things that cause more civilized nations to claim the moral high ground when it comes to capital punishment. I believe that Gandalf said something to this effect: "Many who live deserve death just as many who die deserve life. Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement."
Since you're apparently a guest in my country, next time you wish to air your lies in public, at least make a bit of an effort to make yourself credible.
(sigh) No attempt to suppress rational debate there. I think the reference to "lies" was just a bit unwarranted, don't you think?
Re:You Just Execised Your Free Speech Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
What you consider "public pressure to fall in line" is really just the fact that most people in the U.S. do "support the troops" when they're sent to fight. If you perceive that as pressure, or feel uncomfortable, that's a problem for you, but it isn't "public pressure" to conform.
GWB's "with us or against us" remarks seem fairly tame, especially considering they are targeted at foreign leaders, not domestic voters. If you want to talk about how you might disgree with that, no one is stopping you.
On capital punishment, people and countries can make up their own minds, but opting one way or the other doesn't make anyone morally superior to anyone else. Besides, claims of moral superiority -- as if there's some impartial party keeping score -- are just so much arrogant bigotry.
Gandalf "said"? Gandalf isn't real.
And, yeah. I consider the original poster's assertions to be untrue, i.e. lies. I'm not interested in "rational debate" with anyone who fails to show evidence of rationality, willingness to debate, or complete disregard for truth.
Re:You Just Execised Your Free Speech Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you're trying to say your friend got pulled over for failing to pay a traffic ticket, and got caught driving with a suspended license. Well, bucko, driving without a license is a crime in the U.S. Sorry he forgot to renew his, but the duration of the license is clearly printed on it. And, no, failure to send someone a polite notice that license is expiring doesn't mean the U.S. is a police state. it simply means your friend is a bit irresponsible.
As for opposing the war, I know lots of people who oppose it, have been pretty vocal about it, and not one of them have been arrested. Now, people do get arrested for blocking traffic, defacing public property or commiting other crimes. Although they assert that they're doing that to protest the war, war protesters have been arrested for their crimes, not their opinions or their speech.
For the record, I've spent close to ten years living outside the U.S., in Europe, Africa, and the Arab Middle East. Apart from the Middle East -- where the media is almost all state controlled and saturated with government lies and propaganda -- I've found news eveywhere to concentrate on local issues. Why? Because that's their audience! And I've also found that most people are fundamentally ignorant of what the U.S. is really all about.
Again, try to come up with some facts to support your falsehoods.
yes, blame John Ashcroft (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and 49.9999% of you assholes (that voted) voted for Bush. It's your fault too.
How many of you will sit by and watch Patriot II get passed into Law?
Re:Big brother (Score:2, Insightful)
was spoilt by the greed of men.
In an imperfect world that tends to happen, just like it tends to happen that people get sick, die, cry, and hurt. Only when Jesus comes back to take those who believe away fromthe Earth will those people get any relief from the rest of the world.