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.
Yes, but ... (Score:5, Funny)
Big brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame Cisco too quickly (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Still, if you don't like Cisco's decision, remember that they're not the ones doing the snooping. Cisco is responding to its customers' requests, and if they don't, other hardware vendors will. Cisco's Internet draft may be titled "lawful interception," but there's no guarantee that the capability will always be used legally. If you're looking for someone to blame, consider Attorney General John Ashcroft, who asked for and received sweeping surveillance powers in the USA Patriot Act, along with your elected representatives in Congress, who gave those powers to him with virtually no debate.
(emphasis mine)
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: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:Big brother (Score:3, Informative)
*uncomfortable cough*
I'm not American, but I don't need to pick up a gun... Canada has had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms [laurentia.com] for many years.
The US deserves a *ton* of respect for its pioneering work in this area... but much of the developed world has caught up or [idg.net] arguably [epic.org] surpassed [educause.edu] it [epic.org].
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: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: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: 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.
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether this is good or bad for society is another matter, but it's been suggested that we'll simply need to adapt. Arguably, using information obtained through "privacy-invading" means is just childish immaturity, when you look at the big picture. Maybe our society jus
Re:I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Why do unshared views... (Score:3, 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: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, wh
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:Big brother (Score:5, Interesting)
The Democrats want to take away the second amendment rights. The Republicans want to take away the 1st, 4th, abortion, etc.
Wisen up and rise up. Revolution is the only way. Those in power will fight very hard to stay in power. You end up having to ask yourself one question: How much do you value the rights for which millions have fought and died for?
As for me, I'm going to just use a bit of double-think and forget that I had that thought, so I can go on being a happy little sheep in my comfy white-collar suburban world.
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Funny)
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: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 t
Re:Big brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... Both sides do that, the right-wing zealots and the left-wing whackos.
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember the Clipper Chip and encryption export controls? Supported by Clinton and Gore, opposed by Bush and Ashcroft. Republicans aren't great on civil liberties, but I strongly dispute the implication that Democrats are any better.
Re:Big brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Big brother (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, I'll just have to wait for my legislators [theonion.com] to be replaced.
Re:Big brother (Score:3, Informative)
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: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:3, Interesting)
I knew that the US educational system was bad, but not as bad as you just demonstrated! I wrote a few lines and you can't even read them.
Let me recap: I wrote "The impose death penalty on minors." I missed a 'y' in there, but the sentence is clear, no? I didn't say I disagree with the death penalty, did I? No, I said 'minors'. But that is probably asking too much of your literacy to fathom.
And when it comes to the traffic ticket, a friend of mine forgot to pay his, was pulled over by the Police be
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.
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)
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 d
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 we
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 sen
Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time to break out your own encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a post to a Cypherpunks mailing list concerning a hypothetical device to crack the 1024 bit keys that are so widely used in ssh and the like. The "machine" would cost between several hundred million to a billion dollars and require a megawatt or so of power, but would make cracking those types of keys childs play.
Considering that spy agencies could spend up to 2 billion USD on satellites, they would be crazy to pass something like this up.
Food for thought...
This is not as bad as it sounds (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus its not like itsa new form of intrusion or the ersoion of a sacred right. Moreover we have an extensive legal system that already know how to walk an acceptable line between preserving public order and unlawful searches and seizures. yes there are flagrant abuses of course, but the basic level of public expectaion and legal machinery is inplace to deal with this
Thus the real question is if the ascroft era people will try to use this as an end-run around the existing legal machinery. I paraphrase a former missouri senator who said (about carnavor-like intrusion) "I dont put a phone jack on the outside of my house so the feds can listen in when they please, so I dont want a jack on my internet connection for the same purpose". Ironically that senator was the John ascroft before he lost hisz relection bid to a dead man and became the worst attourney general ever including edwin meese. Now he chafes at these restrictions and does indeed want such a jack and the pre-emptive authority to use it without a court order, probable cause, or a defined list of evidence to be gathered.
Thus I welcome the cisco method since it formalizes what is now a covert and thus unmonitored process. thus this may bring the light of public scrutiniy and invite the invocation of past legal precedent.
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.
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I would think that the bigger hope is that the laws that are designed to prevent abuse of this type of tapping hold up. From a technical point of view, you absolutely don't want an "easy" way to do auditing. Again, looking at it from the standpoint of the "users" of this tapping ability, you want complete anonymity (i.e. you don't even want some curious sys admin to peek and see how many, if any,
No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a terrible excuse. There is a huge difference if (one of) the world's largest maker of networking hardware implements traffic content surveillance, or if some miniscule manufacturer on Iceland does it.
I blame them, they shouldn't get their hands in this jar.
Re:Sigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
As Einstein once said:
Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
Another strike against Cisco. (Score:5, Informative)
Now I certainly feel justified in moving my company off of Cisco's overpriced products.
Re:Another strike against Cisco. (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, like who? Who else makes equipment as dependable, and most especially, has the most kick-ass support I've ever come across.
True story:
I once had a router go out on me, a little 1600. Being clueless (well, mostly harmless as Mr. Adams would say) about em, I could telnet it and see that the flash memory had gone bad. I was freaked and has no idea how to fix it. As a last resort I called up Cisco,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, I guess that means... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bummer...
yeah, right... (Score:2, Funny)
Like I'd ever hand over my encryption keys to my ISP.
Re:yeah, right... (Score:2)
Re:yeah, right... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, i did have a lot of porn and various expensise gifts on my credit card, but i dont think that has anything to do with it.
Thank you slashdot! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thank you slashdot! (Score:2)
But, if your are gonna sell your assets after a failed dot com or you are selling your company, then your gonna say, i got so many cisco whatever routers, switches and they will understand Cisco = $$$. Its not a matter of how good it is, its just a name that means something.
You gonna go around telling people your using Dell PowerEdge Switches or Cisco Switches.
I've even heard of companies using the cisco color so that when they got bought out by Cisco, all they had to do was add th
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!
Re:Undetectable built-in backdoor (Score:2, Interesting)
The undetectability requirement is that the subject of a tap not be able to know they are being tapped. Also: there is a requirement that only authorized personnel be capable of seeing tap information, and not just any random NOC monkey. All of this is completely
Re:Undetectable built-in backdoor (Score:5, Interesting)
A story (I believe) in "California Lawyer" from maybe 3 years ago noted that Kevin Poulsen, while phreaking, had managed to discover phone taps planted by the US Government in various foreign embassies, including South Africa. A condition of his release was that he was forbidden to discuss the details.
Re:Undetectable built-in backdoor (Score:3, Interesting)
The "phreak" term for it is RemObS (short for Remote Observation System). These things really exist, contrary to many folks' opinion.
what about != U.S.A. ? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:2)
Do you REALLY think they don't have something to decipher all encrypted traffic?
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:Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:2)
Turn your computer off!!!
Its that easy, realy it is. If it doesnt have power, nobody can listen!
Re:Should assume your channels are vulnerable (Score:2)
No, really, I don't think this is a big deal at all. Governments have had voice tap capability for 30 or more years on communications network. Data tap capability on telephone switches has been around since at least the early 90's, that I am personally aware of. I suspect it dates back further. Are you aware that any voice conversation in North America is trivially tapped with a court order, and compl
Other countries. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lawmeme also covering this story (Score:5, Informative)
sPh
it only bothers the unknowing honest. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I simply send everything encrypted AND send lots of fake packets... I.E. random sized files that consist of the contents of
It's called hiding in a sea of garbage. Now write a nice small program that is a P2P sharing app (or a plug-in for one) that sends around some of those random files to other users (small ones 1-100K in size then keep your files in that size range)
Screw with them as they screw with you.
so a freenet node will completely hose this "eavesdropping system"
Re:it only bothers the unknowing honest. (Score:3, Insightful)
multiple hidden wiretaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:multiple hidden wiretaps... (Score:3, Funny)
police answer yes, badguys answer no.
encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:encryption (Score:3, Funny)
You can do better than that! Encrypt the encrypted keyring, ROT-13 it, and hand it over on shuffled, waterlogged punch cards.
That will force them to use their dinner, lunch, and midnight snack computers, as well!
It's a 2-Sided Coin (Score:5, Interesting)
This software can already be bought (Score:3, Informative)
So, this outlaws quantum encryption then (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, this outlaws quantum encryption then (Score:3, Interesting)
Luckily, we have alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, Cisco knows that companies that used to buy from them will still probably buy from them. So this can't be a huge risk to their company. But the 'new features' would firmly embed government eavesdropping facilities in major ISPs, banks, large companies, schools, universities, etc.
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:Luckily, we have alternatives (Score:2)
DPUG Protocol (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
phones (Score:5, Informative)
Virtually all phone calls (cellular and land line) in America run through certain switches controlled by Verint [verintsystems.com] and they are always used by law enforcement for wiretapping (and are constantly accused of abusing their authority). (Google [google.com] for Comverse, the company's name before the recent change to Verint.)
Those cops... (Score:5, Funny)
Because if they did then all they would do all day is send data to each other through the router about what doughnut, gun, and police force is best...
The funny thing is... I'm an army reserve and Auxiliary Police Officer which means I can make fun of myself!
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.
PPP over SSH... (Score:2)
Time to setup white list mail servers that only accept email from other white list mail servers where the keys have been shared via offline media.
These servers will interconnect via PPP over SSH connections (the keys will also be shared offline)
The filesystems on these machines will be encrypted also using keys stored on easy (and quickly) destroyable media (such as meltable USB memory sticks)
Just ideas...
duh this is in every phone switch today (Score:2)
So please get your heads out of the collective sand and realize that if your voice, VOIP or data traffic leaves your facilities its going to be picked up if someone wants to see it. So this is not new, nor is it news nor is it any different than what we already have in place.
undetectable (Score:2)
Sun or Linux as networking gear (Score:2)
Since when does LAWFUL intercept mean "Orwellian"? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Did it ever occur to any of the bitchers and moaners here that when the FBI or the cops need to intercept netwo
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.
performance (Score:3, Interesting)
on the face of it this is going to look like a provider outage i am thinking. since its completely 'transparent' even with multiple big brothers or any blakc hat people that might have jumped on the router as well i am thinking.
if nothing is going to show up in the interface statistics and nothing in the cpu is going to account for the activity. but when you look at your csu/dsu (or equivlent) you will see the activity.
maybe the best way to deal with this is to forget using the real traffic, but rather use the rfc that they propose for actual communication since its invisible to the other peers. sounds like a stealth vpn to me of sorts.
Since Open Source projects can't be bought (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to create some crypto traffic between my home box and work machine (besides the normal SSH, of course). The more white noise packets floating around out there, the better. TCP/IP spook fodder, if you will.
Better yet, is there an encrypted, routed "internet" I can plug into at will when I'm online, just to obfuscate my traffic a bit? Or is that what Freenet is about?
work separate from morality? (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, this makes it sound like there was a law passed which specifies all routers must have this kind of capability. I sure have not heard about that.
It sounds like currently an ISP can be subpoenaed to find out what a particular person is sending. Currently, the ISP seems to provide complete logs and allows law enforcement to sort through it. This just sounds like bad practice of law. If we lived in John-Ashcroft's-wet-dream-land where every packet has a personal ID number on it which could not be forged or faked, sure you could ask for what a person sends. This is so far from the case that it is a joke. Even if I only use one computer and it has one IP address, what if someone else uses it? Even if the email has a name on it, what if it was forged? It would be laughably easy to plant evidence on, say, a business rival. Bottom line: computer are not very secure, in general. (Side note: sure, your computer may be very secure but visit, say, a law office. You may be surprised - even by very large law offices with nice wood panneling and mugs with the partner's names on them.)
If subpoenaed for John Q. Terrorist's internet activity, knowing what we know, we cannot hand anything over with a clean consience. If, on the other hand, all of IP address 64.22.xx.xx is subpoenaed, sure, we have to hand it over but we cannot say who did what with any great certainty.
Lastly, Mr. Baker seems to indicate providing a product is separate from morality. This is a very disjointed view of work - almost on the verge of: "what I do at work should be totally separate from morality." This is quite frightening. Perhaps this is too strong. He is clearly saying if the company follows the law, this is completely separate from morality. Again, this should be frightening: if you follow the law, morality is not at issue? The most obvious reaction is that if the law is wrong, in America, you have a responsibility to not follow it. Being part of a corporation does not absolve you of your duties as a citizen.
In my opinion, the workplace is where people are least moral (in my experience) and thus it is exactly where people need to be thinking of morality the most - certainly not separating it and arguing "we are just following the law".
Transcript (Score:3, Funny)
Line 1: Sssh, I can hear something.
Line 2: Hey bob, we got something.
Line 1: It's them!
Line 2: They can hear us!! Quick, drop the hardline.
Line 1: They've gone, call downtown!
Downtown: Oops sorry, we forgot to update the IOS.
nb: laugh
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.
This concept isn't new. (Score:5, Informative)
I get what you are saying, but this is not a new concept. I used to work for a big cell-phone maker, in the cellular software division. I saw preliminary information about a wiretap project that would allow the carrier to intercept, log, and reroute calls if told to do so by some authorized government agency. I have no doubts this is possible, because we were working on real-time systems. To do it would take a second or two at most. I don't know what ever happened to that project, it kind of faded away and our department didn't actually work on it. But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
This isn't new, we are just able to find out about things like this now because of the internet. As much as we don't want "our" technology mucked with by the government, I think it is going to be tough to prevent.