Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the say-please dept.

Privacy 413

Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, writes "There are places where criminal activity is centralized: the backbone hubs located in hosting facilities across the country. All of the Internet's activity, legal and illegal, flows through these 'choke points,' and the feds, of course, are already tapping those points and siphoning off data. What Mueller wants is the legal authority to comb through the backbone data, which is already being siphoned off by the NSA, in order to look for illegal activity."

cancel ×

413 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And how do we break the backbone? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199756)

Wireless mesh is the only way I know how. Even Tor and Freenet can't really be trusted.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199796)

Why break it? Just encrypt.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (2, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199836)

As has been mentioned already, the backbone operators can just just block encrypted data. We need to be more decentralized, like a jellyfish.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (2, Insightful)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199876)

We need to be more decentralized

Who is we?

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199972)

Who is we?

Us...those who don't want the authorities to spy on us.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200070)

I think he was looking for names, and pictures to give to the feds.

Of course on the internet one can have many names.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (2, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200176)

George Walker Bush
Richard Bruce Cheney
Larry Edwin Craig

Oh, you wanted pictures, too. Okay. How about this one [indymedia.ie] ? The big banner says it all.

The people who have the most to fear from this are the politicians. After all, if the FBI can snoop it, guess what will inevitably follow? One word: Net-Watergate. Your political enemies won't cave in to your demands on that anti-terrorism bill? Threaten to expose that they visited hot-young-underage-nymphos-with-bags-over-their-heads-and-bushy-underarm-hair.com on twelve separate occasions in the last year.

Yikes.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (4, Interesting)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200384)

George Walker Bush

Richard Bruce Cheney

Larry Edwin Craig



Oh, you wanted pictures, too. Okay. How about this one [indymedia.ie] ? The big banner says it all.



The people who have the most to fear from this are the politicians. After all, if the FBI can snoop it, guess what will inevitably follow? One word: Net-Watergate. Your political enemies won't cave in to your demands on that anti-terrorism bill? Threaten to expose that they visited hot-young-underage-nymphos-with-bags-over-their-heads-and-bushy-underarm-hair.com on twelve separate occasions in the last year.



Yikes.

Or just claim they did. Remember, anything digital can be faked.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (4, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200196)

Who is we?
We the People

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199916)

Backbone operators are unlikely to block encrypted data. That would bring down things like VPN and HTTPS which their corporate clients need. Even if they were selective in which encrypted data they block, there will be mistakes and workarounds. Encryption is still a good way to go, even if we had large mesh networks.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (5, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200170)

"the backbone operators can just just block encrypted data."

Email message:

Here's my vacation photos

a whole lot of mime-encoded binary that might have
a legal-looking jpeg header at the start.

How are they going to filter this exactly?

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (3, Informative)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200192)

If they are able to distinguish between encrypted data and JPEG images, the encryption used is seriously flawed.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (1)

brunokummel (664267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200286)

Hooray for Steganography [wikipedia.org]

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (3, Interesting)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200376)

You make assumptions. Backbone operators won't block anything that stops commerce, and yes the bad guys will use the protocols and encryption methods that the good guys are using if they need to.

Also, by "backbone" the slashdot article writer was also being presumptuous. The FBI director was talking about stopping bad guys at their "choke point", and Ars Technica gave their own interpretation of what he meant by candidly assuming he meant an Internet backbone (or "hub"). Yes the US government can and does access these hubs (illegally perhaps, that is something the courts may not have the executive power to decide). The FBI also presumably wants access to the information that the NSA does (talk about information sharing between disparate government agencies!). Alas, however, a "choke point" could very well just mean the initial spotting (or IP address, gateway, etc) of a botnet virus that could be garnered from more liberal eavesdropping laws. Let's not make assumptions (in the article topic) and take them as is.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200450)

In this day and age, that wouldnt be practical.

Rule of Law. (4, Insightful)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199848)

I want my country and constitution back. These people have a lot of nerve to ask me for money to be able to read my private papers and correspondence.

Re:Rule of Law. (5, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199938)

As an 1800s newspaperman once said, "Some of them have but one redeeming feature, and that is a colossal gall."

Consider how different things would be if whenever the gov't wanted money, they had to come begging, hat in hand, rather than simply demanding and taking it as they presently do. Any highwayman can do that much -- and would probably spend it more rationally as well. :/

How'd I put it last week? Something like "Taking from one: theft. Taking from many: taxes."

Re:Rule of Law. (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199984)

It's not so bad that they ask. What's worse is our representatives usually give them what they want. Or when they take what they want illegally our representatives don't do anything about it. I blame Congress as much as anyone for our constitutional crisis.

Re:Rule of Law. (1)

Tesen (858022) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200230)

No it is bad that they ask; if they actually had a fundamental understanding of freedom and liberty, they would be ashamed of themselves.

Re:Rule of Law. (4, Insightful)

perlchild (582235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200364)

I find it also fascinating that if you presented this in non-internet terms, the citizens would be up in arms.

"We want to film every major turnpike 7/24 so we will always have pictures of infractions when there is one that's commited." They already have for info, so don't need a warrant either, and since the legal status of a backbone done will be needlessly tangled, I'm sure they'll have no trouble getting it classified as a public place. Now encryption would to me, be considered whispering in a public place(so protected speech) but somehow, I doubt that's how the story'll go.

Re:Rule of Law. (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200060)

I want my country and constitution back. These people have a lot of nerve to ask me for money to be able to read my private papers and correspondence.
I agree. What can we do? Seriously. Let's take action.

Vote and Organize. (4, Insightful)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200234)

Get the word out and vote. Real change comes from knowledge. The Republicans are going to be run out of Washington on a rail but that won't matter if their replacements don't enforce the Bill of Rights. Vote for people who get it at every level of government, regardless of party affiliation. Write the representatives you already have and tell them what you think. People like RMS already have political action notes [stallman.org] . Join or form your own civic group to get the word out and organize effective rights defense. There will always be people who attack your rights because it makes their lives easier but everyone is always better off when rights are protected. Make noise and the right kinds of things have a chance of happening.

Re:Rule of Law. (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200282)

What can we do?

Try something new. Vote the Party out of office. That would be the first step.

And yet... (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200252)

And yet we all read every day about bot nets and cyber attacks.

Sooner or later government is going to have to take a more active police roll in internet affairs.

Yes, I understand the privacy issues, and I worry about them, too.

I just think today the Internet is much like the Wild West with a hundred miles to the nearest police man.

Re:And yet... (0, Troll)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200544)

Bullshit. The government is already involved too much, but the underlying cause of the problem is the in-secure windows machines.

It is *BY DESIGN* that windows machines are in-secure, in order for the fascist darkside to take over.

The have created a problem, and now they want to 'manage' the solution. The oldest trick known to man.

Re:Rule of Law. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200254)

More then likely they are already doing it. Remember the mirrored access to everything passing on AT&T etc fiber optic cables? Better and faster filters/servers and possibly more access points is probably what they are after, as well as permissioning it to kill public awareness and the lawsuits already running.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own."
Thomas Jefferson

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

With words like these, is it of any wonder why some in recent past have tried to lessen Jefferson's stature in history?

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199886)

Stringing a series of wifi routers all the way to /.'s servers would be a bit cost-prohibitive for me.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (3, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200024)

It is my sincere belief and hope that we are far closer to ubiquitous ad hock wireless mesh networking than most people recognize.

This sort of shit just brings it closer.

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (2, Insightful)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200124)

If our only hope is wireless mesh, then we have had it. Mesh is one of those really cool, but over-hyped words...and I shudder every time I hear it. Mesh on a large scale like that would be one huge cluster...and if by cluster you mean cluster $%^&, then yes, that would describe what would happen perfectly.

Transporter_ii

Re:And how do we break the backbone? (1)

DrLov3 (1025033) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200582)

What Mueller wants is the legal authority to comb through the backbone data, which is already being siphoned off by the NSA, in order to look for illegal activity Look nhay further, mate!

Next on his list (5, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199758)

The legal authority to block anything he can't read.

I would say "Welcome to Soviet America" but the feds have had the "we can do what we want in the name of protecting the country damn the Constitution" attitude off and on since the 1700s.

Re:Next on his list (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199892)

The legal authority to block anything he can't read.

What, like French? Or just something tedious like Stephen King? ;-)

Cheers

It's not a very subtle distinction. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200056)

Old system - the duly appointed authorities had to SUSPECT you of a crime ... and get sufficient evidence to convince a disinterested 3rd party (a judge) that there was a need for a warrant.

New system - skim through the LEGITIMATE transactions of EVERYONE hoping to find something criminal or actionable or ... just something you want to read about someone. Stalking ex's. Harassing people who do not respect you enough. Getting some info on that cutie you saw at the grocery store.

Fuck that.

The other shoe to drop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200288)

This accumulation of power will be, or maybe is currently being, be in secret. As seems typical with the US massive abuses will eventually be uncovered and there will then be a flurry of regulation and oversight committees re-instituted. How quickly we forget past abuses. US = ADD nation

Re:Next on his list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200564)

Actually, they've had that attitude since about 1860.

From my cold dead fingers (5, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199770)


will they pry my private encryption key passphrase.

Re:From my cold dead fingers (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199856)

OK.

Re:From my cold dead fingers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23199948)

You write yours down? I just memorize mine. Then it's safe even when I die. ;)

Re:From my cold dead fingers (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200040)

So far, you have that right.

See United States v. Boucher, 2007 WL 4246473 (November 29, 2007)

If ^h^h^h When they change the law, you could spend a few months in a luxurious 5' x 5' wire cage if you don't turn over your passwods.

Re:From my cold dead fingers (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200102)

Oh, I'm sure a little waterboarding will jog that memory and loosen that tongue of yours. Not that I would advocate torture.

Re:From my cold dead fingers (2, Insightful)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200112)


EXACTLY. Let them read my nonsensical jibba-jabba.. there are damn near unbeatable encryption algorithms that exist today.

My attitude is, if you're not smart enough to encrypt your sensitive data, then you've got it coming. It seems that the US bounces back and forth between a nanny-state and the big-brother state. People, you have to take care of your own, you simply can't trust ISP's, routers, google, the girl that swipes your visa at the corner station, etc etc etc.

Heads up people, its comin' atcha

Re:From my cold dead fingers (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200408)

Ha, your 4096 bit key is no match for the NSA's TRANSLTR [wikipedia.org] !

It's only a matter of time (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199792)

"Criminals live amongst us. We need to bug everyone's homes so we can root them out."

Re:It's only a matter of time (2, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200148)

"And be able to change the definition of 'Criminal' any time we feel like it."

Public has a short attention span (4, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199794)

Back around the turn of the millennium, the U.S.'s monitoring of Internet traffic was a big topic of discussion on the Internet, spurred on by James Bamford's Body of Secrets [amazon.com] and the European Union's report on ECHELON facilities. Except for some of us Slashbots, the public seems to have lost interest in this troubling phenomenon.

Re:Public has a short attention span (2, Funny)

motek (179836) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199872)

the public seems to have lost interest in this troubling phenomenon.
The public is busy with something else. They went shopping.

Re:Public has a short attention span (5, Insightful)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199940)

9-11, Iraq, 9-11, Iraq, 9-11, terrorism

There, distracted yet? Now leave the man behind the curtain alone.

Re:Public has a short attention span (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200168)

Actually they're watching American Idol and applying what they learn to the presidential candidate election process.

Re:Public has a short attention span (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200396)

Vote early and vote often?

Re:Public has a short attention span (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199912)

99% of the public subscribes to the "nothing to hide" theory. They never had any interest. Only "criminals" are troubled by this.

Re:Public has a short attention span (1)

thanatos_x (1086171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200074)

If one assumes a perfectly accurate justice system, 1% of the population is criminal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html [washingtonpost.com]

Having said that, it wouldn't even bother me that much if there was real oversight on it, but that seems to be a vestigial notion in the US.

Re:Public has a short attention span (1)

denton420 (1235028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200342)

Reminds me of that great game titled Deus Ex (~1999). Anyone ever play it?

The gameplay was great, but it was the story line that was truly impressive.

The world as I see it moves closer and closer to this story world every day...

Soon we will have an autonomous AI filtering every single packet of data sent over the internet resulting in a sentient being that knows every piece of information about every person on the globe in the name of justice/security.

I cant wait guys, can you??

Re:Public has a short attention span (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200506)

Yes, spectacular game! :) Coincidentally I just found that disc yesterday while rummaging through a stack of old movies. I think I might install it again and give it another go!

Twofo GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23199810)

Gay Nigger Anal Action [twofo.co.uk]

That's right, you cock-smoking tea-baggers!

Eat my goatse'd penis! [goatse.ch]

What If... (5, Funny)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199818)

What if their combing leads me to a brush with the law? It could get hairy....

Re:What If... (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199878)

wow, that comment was so corny you should be pun ished for it

Re:What If... (2, Funny)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200264)

....by the fuzz, no less.

Re:What If... (1)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200332)

Comedy is it's own reward. Good thing too. No one in their right mind would ever pay me to do it.

Hello, is this Hollywood?

Re:What If... (1)

Pahroza (24427) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199888)

That was atrocious, really. You can do better than that.

Re:What If... (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200274)

The point of poor punnery is more to cause excruciating pain in the pun-ee rather than have others consider the pun-er funny.

These are the lines to break out at 6:30am on a bad day when your co-workers haven't finished their first coffee. The sudden pause in their trains of thought with the impending groan that follows is where the humour truly lies.

Of course, the only defense is to be a soldier in uniform as I'm pretty sure such tactics are against the Geneva convention.

Re:What If... (1)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200278)

What could be better than a triple pun? Three for the price of one and ... it fit on one line! Talk about your one-liners...

Jealousy doesn't become you, though you wear it well enough.

Am I the only one... (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199838)

Who sees that this could become a huge regulatory nightmare in the coming years for software developers [codemonkeyramblings.com] ? This will only be effective so long as either the public continues using mainstream protocols for most activities, and the protocols that the FBI wants to monitor don't get changed or replaced on a regular basis by those who don't want to be monitored. The eventual outcome, IMO, besides the obvious privacy, constitutional and financial issues involved in this would be a bridge between this mandate, the data retention mandate and CALEA causing all providers of IT products to comply to make their products easy for law enforcement to monitory, going so far as to outlaw the deployment of software that is capable of evading surveillance.

FY. (4, Funny)

Pahroza (24427) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199842)

I for one DO NOT welcome our evil packet sniffing overlords.

Re:FY. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200134)

Hail Dude.

This is how it's done (5, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199850)

Small steps, seemingly innocuous in and of themselves, but taken together, result in a total subversion of the intent of the founders.

Re:This is how it's done (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199964)

This isn't a small step at all. The small steps have already been taken. This is (if I may switch analogies) that last "lick" of the tootsie roll pop. ("Crunch")

Re:This is how it's done (4, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200258)

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, that is the minority opinion in my workplace, the intelligence community. Most of my coworkers seriously believe that wiretapping and this kind of internet monitoring are fine, since they're not doing anything wrong. And as a rule, they really aren't. To work in the intelligence community, and I'm sure to a similar degree in the law enforcement community, you need a clean background to get a clearance. Most of us, myself included, have absolutely no criminal background, no history of drug use, no financial problems, no foreign contacts, etc. For these types of people, intrusion on their lily-white lifestyles doesn't seem that big a deal, and I felt the same way for a while.

But it's the slippery slope that bothers me. When we put up no fight for these small losses of privacy, what will we do when the larger ones come along? How de we roll back the intrusions once they're made?

Remind me again... (4, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199864)

Remind me again how any of this falls under the umbrella of rights protection with which the government was originally charged.

Re:Remind me again... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200256)

I am still trying to find out where the probable cause for a search is. This is no different than asking for permission to wiretap anyone and everyone without a warrant. Oh wait, nevermind, they are doing that too. I guess at least you can't say they are hypocrits; their actions have been fairly consistent and very unconstitutional.

so much for probable cause (5, Informative)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199884)

Why is it so easy to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and so hard to put them back? What a bunch of assholes. They must have had the words "probable cause" surgically removed from their brains.

In the words of Spock (1)

m93 (684512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200430)

Spock: As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create. ...

Too Late (5, Insightful)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199906)

You have to know if the Feds are asking, it's because they are ready are doing.

Which also means they never stopped the Total Information Awareness (TIA) Program or Echelon, the NSA worldwide digital interception program or Carnivore, the FBI US digital interception program.

Man, I bet they've got petabytes of freaky porn by now.

FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199954)

Yeah, and I want to get laid and every five year old wants a pony. Unluckily for me and the five year old, however, the FBI is the only one likely to get their wish.

There are places where criminal activity is centralized: the backbone hubs located in hosting facilities across the country.

Yes, they'll solve all those murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, and other violence by monitoring the backbone.

While you're at it, why not tap all our phones and open all our postal mail as well? Hell, walk on into everyone's house looking for evidence of criminal activity! Why not?

Re:FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200020)

Didn't you hear? Thought crimes are easier to catch than IRL ones. Also, Terrorists use the internet now. TERRORISTS! And, Pedophiles! PEDOPHILES! Isn't it better to catch the criminals before they act? They could even name this new pre-emptive crime fighting unit something that shows the public all the good its doing, something like Pre-Crime! Yeah, that's it! We'll all be safer once criminals are stopped before they do anything!

OMGWTFBBQFBIFTW (1)

Grendel_Prime (178874) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200326)

You said "five year old" and "laid" and "pony" in the same sentence, which just triggered Echelon's autofilters and flagged this discussion for FBI staff to review before arrest. OMG I JUST DID THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!! SOMEBODY CALL RON KUBY.

Re:FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200378)

Yeah, and I want to get laid and every five year old wants a pony

Unfortunately for you, mentioning getting laid and "five year old" in the same sentence trips the FBI's backbone filter regex. Get ready for a knock on the door sometime later today. Why don't you have a seat over there...

Re:FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200398)

Yeah, and I want to get laid and every five year old wants a pony.

Well, maybe you two can reach an agreement. :-P

Ooooh, I'm an evil, evil person and I'll rot in hell. Bad Dobby!!

Re:FBI Wants Authority To Filter Net Backbone (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200566)

Hell, walk on into everyone's house looking for evidence of criminal activity! Why not?
Because they'll see you doing that, obviously.

Well, I guess the other shoe is still dropping... (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199958)

but arcing up to be planted in our asses...

Pretty soon, they'll want to embedd blueteeth in our asses...

Secure (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199976)

This is just another reason to use secure protocols and encryption for messages, perhaps Tor, too.

Out smart em-thay... (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23199988)

What Mueller wants is the legal authority to comb through the backbone data...

e'll-Way ust-jay se-uay ode-cay.

Let's consult the checklist (3, Funny)

scaryjohn (120394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200006)

Your post advocates a

(X) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

(X) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(X) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(X) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(X) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Let other people do the dirty work (1)

ArIck (203) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200014)

As if NSA spying wasnt bad enough now they want the ISP's to do the dirty work and hand them the result in a silver platter. With intelligence agencies doing the work you could atleast hope on their incompetence to keep you safe but now even that is gone.

Next up: Hiring monkeys at NSA. Details at 11

[America] Please stop trying to export this (0, Flamebait)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200028)

You had your years of pre "police state", so let other countries have theirs. Don't export your "values" to other countries and help them go directly to the police state stage under the guise of democracy. If _this_ is democracy, I'd rather not have it.

Just Remember This FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200082)

Surf Nazis Must Die!

Misleading Headline (3, Informative)

Gregb05 (754217) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200108)

Please tag 'badheadline', 'misleadingheadline' or 'kdawsonfud'.

This is not filtering, this is mining. Both are considered bad, but there is a difference.

Filter or Monitor? (1)

edbob (960004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200110)

From the description, it sounds more like he wants to be able to monitor the backbone data. I would think that filtering it would mean that he wants the ability to censor. While I find either development troubling, one is far worse than the other.

Child porn is a big problem, take our word for it (4, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200126)

The problem I see with all these discussions of privacy vs. evil child porn is that there is no way to independently verify how big of a problem child porn on the internet really is.

The FBI would have you believe that it is a huge problem worth drastically expanding surveillance powers over. Yet compared to the 70s, when (afaik) there was legal child pornography being produced and sold, what is the production rate for this type of material today? Are there really any child pornography sites on the internet where people can pay to download child porn? (please no links)

I also worry that the focus of law enforcement's "war on child porn" is shifting from the visual depiction of young children actually engaged in sexual activity with adults, to (1) pictures of naked children not engaged in sexual activity, and (2) material that is made by teenagers themselves. The original intent of having an exception to the First Amendment for child pornography is being distorted. This is especially true when you consider that CGI child porn that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing is illegal to possess (thanks to the PROTECT Act), and that people are being arrested for pasting pictures of children's heads on naked adult bodies: http://www.theledger.com/article/20080418/BREAKING/453898235 [theledger.com] .

Goatse encryption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200140)

From now on all my sensitive data is going to be embedded in a goatse jpeg. If they really want my data so much they'll stare at a gaping asshole, they can have it.

Police State (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200142)

Welcome to the Police State (TM). Population: You.

Will my fellow conservatives please speak up? (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200150)

I do not know in my right mind how, it became permissable for George Bush to undermine civil liberties in the same way that we always argued it was wrong for Democrats to do.

Liberty and Freedom do not care about political affiliations and political parties. If a federal practice is wrong, it is wrong regardless of which party does it. If we do not want Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton reading our e-mail, then we should not tolerate George Bush or John McCain doing it either. Doing so only undermines the very essence of the rule of law and the fabric of our democracy. It is the totalitarian regime that justifies itself through personality, not the free one.

We conservatives have many differences with our fellow liberal americans and we always will. However, the very thing that makes us American, the idea, as Jefferson said, "We are endowed with certain inalienable rights ... To secure these liberties, governments are instituted among men", is under assault and in the name of a rival that frankly is not nearly the equal of the rivals that we have faced in the past. We overcame the British Empire to secure our independence. We fought the Barbary Pirates, our own Civil War, Imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany, and then put our cities on the nuclear firing line against the dark stain of Communism... and we NEVER once entertained turning America into a land of checkpoints and identity requests.

What is going on now in our country is madness. America is not supposed to be a place where guys with machine guns are walking around train platforms, asking if you have a driver's license with federal approved features. America is not supposed to be the place where the government collects data on all of its citizens.

Yeah, the muzzies blew up the world trade center, and its sad that those people died. But, the British burned our nation's capital to the ground, the Germans sunk the Lusitania, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and captured an army of 80,000 men of ours. We've been attacked before and we'll be attacked again, and what makes America special is that we keep our freedoms, rather than surrender them.

There's a million dead soldiers rolling over in their graves because we have so easily surrendered every freedom they fought for. It's an insult to them, to our national heritage, to turn our country into some sort of crappy police state because a few muslims with box cutters give us the willies.

Support those candidates, regardless of party, that promise to end the Dept of Homeland Security, promise to repeal the USA PATRIOT ACT, and join me in a call for a Constitutional Amendment that bars the Federal Government from intercepting any electronic communications within its borders, unless it can prove before a court that those communications are with another nation with which the USA might be in a state of war.

Re:Will my fellow conservatives please speak up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200338)

hear, hear! (he posts anonymously)

Re:Will my fellow conservatives please speak up? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23200494)

I'm not sure what planet you've been on, but the last time the Republican party was the party of civil liberties was when Lincoln was president.

Re:Will my fellow conservatives please speak up? (1)

scruffy (29773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200586)

Take out that gratuitous swipe at the Democrats, and I agree completely.

We won't have those citizens organizing against us (2, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200232)

This plan is custom designed for keeping your citizens under control. Monitor your email, phone calls, and snail mail. All in the name of preventing terrorism, saving the children, preventing crime or whatever.

That's what they say anyway - and it might even be what they really mean. But the uses of this technology will expand and it's just a matter of time until what the monitors are looking for are "undesirable elements" as defined by the administration in power.

Imagine what J. Edgar Hoover would have done with this ability. How about Richard Nixon; breaking into the DNC to gather information got him in trouble - if he could have accomplished the same thing with a wiretap or two do you think he'd have hesitated?

Our Founding Fathers put limits on what government could do, insured the privacy of private spaces and generally did a pretty good job of creating a system that would resist the abuses of a power mad wanna-be dictator. It's sad to see these protections being dismantled; history is being ignored and it's going to repeat itself like it or not.

Misleading Summary Title (3, Interesting)

street struttin' (1249972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200320)

What was said in the article was:

search capability utilizing filters

It has nothing to do with filtering the traffic on the network, which implies blocking/removing valid packets. It only means implementing a search capability that can use keyword filters (like searching in the gnarled mess for the word "Kalashnikov").

It is bad that they are dumping all this data for perusal later, obviously. But what they are asking for in the article is just a better way to search around in that data. It's not really anything new.

They'll get it. (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200432)

May take a while - a few months, a few years - but they can wait.

Once you've forgotten about this story, they'll go to work making it happen.

Support the EFF [eff.org] , ACLU [aclu.org] , and GOA [gunowners.org] . :)

Re:There are places where criminal activity is c (5, Informative)

Prisoner's Dilemma (1268306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200444)

>> "There are places where criminal activity is centralized..."

Yes there are. The White House, NSA, Dept of Homeland Security.

Question (1)

jabskeeterbug (1032608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200512)

How long are the American people going to put up with this shit? Our government has done more damage to this country than the terrorists did on 9-11. They don't even need to attack us again, they can sit back and watch us self-destruct.

DAMN! (0, Redundant)

certain death (947081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23200580)

fuck! fuck, fuck, fuck!!!! I was going to say something really interesting and perhaps funny, but I just can't even come up with anything...which is really nothing new for me, but normally I am at least a smart ass.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>