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!

Carnivore Goes Wireless

michael posted about 13 years ago | from the look-ma-no-wires dept.

The Courts 169

GMontag writes: "The Washington Post Tech Section is running this story FBI's 'Carnivore' Might Target Wireless Text. Apparently, since the industry can't provide big brothering to the satisfaction of the FBI the FBI will will do it *for* them. This is a collector's item too, with no mention in article of DCS1000 being used to "save" children!"

cancel ×

169 comments

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

wireless is for fags (-1, Offtopic)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 13 years ago | (#2213646)

gay fucking post

duh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213650)

hello, I do not have foo

radio (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 13 years ago | (#2213651)

wireless transmission can be monitored by anyone, not just the F.B.I.

yes, but... (1)

kurowski (11243) | about 13 years ago | (#2213695)

not legally. well, not in the US at least.

Re:radio (2)

jandrese (485) | about 13 years ago | (#2213700)

That's not true anymore, at least not in the US. In the US it is illegal to listen in on cell phone frequencies for instance.

Of course it's technicly feasable for anybody to do so, but it's not legal unless you are the FBI (or other law enforcement and you have the proper paperwork).

Re:radio (2, Insightful)

Menteb (161089) | about 13 years ago | (#2213722)

well, so is making backdoors in webserver software and selling it to stupid people (euh... M$ maybe ;). I mean, not every person on the planet is born with good brains.

They do not need Carnivore... (1)

Ave_menteM (517211) | about 13 years ago | (#2213847)

they have Echelon, the satellite spy that does that job.

Re:radio (1)

Kryptonomic (161792) | about 13 years ago | (#2213984)

When will you people learn that whatever's broadcast can and WILL be intercepted. The only question that remains is whether they can break your encryption...

fp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213653)

fuck linux

Re:fp (1)

Menteb (161089) | about 13 years ago | (#2213697)

Thank you dear sir. But I'm gonna stick with fucking Micro$soft.

Greetz
Menteb

Big Brother (1)

jmallett (189882) | about 13 years ago | (#2213655)

I suppose 2004 is just as good as 1984.

Re:Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213688)

Well, I hate to admit it but Cereal Killer said it best in "Hackers" Orson Wells is alive and well NOW , the book just had the wrong year for the title.

Re:Big Brother (1)

olivieradam (162258) | about 13 years ago | (#2213804)

1984 was written by Georges Orwell, not Orson Wells.
Orwell was journalist during the spanish civil war (1930's).

Re:Big Brother (0)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | about 13 years ago | (#2213809)

Orson Welles died of terminal obesity, get your facts straight.

And what book are you talking about?

Re:Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2214002)

terminal obesity

Are you a doctor? What kind of a cause-of-death is that? There's no such thing as "terminal obesity" .

I'd say he died of a heart attack.

Natalie Portman kissed my left ear (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213671)

then I stamped "Property of the RIAA" on her ass, Partly to cover up the illegal DeCSS code which was already on it.

I licked the snuff from between her toes and touched her virgin labia, sweet dreams are made of this.

Another reason for encryption (1)

TrentSeigfried (517273) | about 13 years ago | (#2213672)

There's just no good reason to send plain text over a wireless line. Not only can any private citizen with a decent radio setup listen in, now the government will listen in, too.

What's needed is a good wireless encryption standard with good firmware decoding. A simple hardware setup with centralized servers containing public keys would be a fantastic way for a wireless company to earn my business.

Re:Another reason for encryption (2)

yellowstone (62484) | about 13 years ago | (#2213759)

What's needed is a good wireless encryption standard with good firmware decoding
Given the current corporate Zeitgeist (what's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours), I wouldn't be inclined to invest a lot of faith in any COTS hardware-based encryption scheme.

Not to say I wouldn't use it, but I wouldn't consider it secure without some open-source software encryption package running on top of it.

Yikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213683)

Somebody call the CDC its gone airborne.

Can a nigga get a table dance? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213699)

Check it out check it out WHOO! Shake dat body!

*sigh* (3, Informative)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | about 13 years ago | (#2213702)

What part of "subject to court order" don't you understand?

Sometimes I think there are people who seriously think we should completely ban law enforcement because there might be some miniscule possibility of abuse.

Re:*sigh* (1)

Menteb (161089) | about 13 years ago | (#2213738)

abuse can be good :)

Re:*sigh* (1)

briggsb (217215) | about 13 years ago | (#2213791)

Sometimes I think there are people who seriously think we should completely ban law enforcement because there might be some miniscule possibility of abuse.


Just like authority thinks that all blank media should be taxed because there is possiblity of abuse .

Re:*sigh* (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 13 years ago | (#2213865)

Just like authority thinks that all blank media should be taxed because there is possiblity of abuse .
Taxation is not the same thing as banning.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213937)

Don't you think there is a slight difference between shild abuses and insignificant bs like taxes on blank cds.

Oh! You had to pay a few cents extra, how the #%% can you compare that to child abuse????

Re:*sigh* (1)

UberLame (249268) | about 13 years ago | (#2213815)

Yes, but they are still watching everything in that area subject to court order. How are we to trust them if we can review the process that decides which messages get saved, and which don't? Maybe your neighbor is being carnivored, but they decide to also save your message discussing "weaknesses in css style protection flavor of the week" for later investigation. After all, when they see a "crime" in progress, they are allowed to act on it reguardless of if they only saw because of survailence of someone else.

At least that is my understanding as a non lawyer.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213816)


What part of "subject to court order" don't you understand?


How often are wiretap requests turned down?


We need to be watchful and suspicious because there is a HISTORY of abuse. If it was a miniscule possibility, I wouldn't worry about it. If I was Chinese, the thought of having a rally in Tiennenmin Square would make me nervous. In the U.S., I worry when my government wants to capture legal communications which they have no use, need, or warrant for, and "trust" them to do the right thing with it. We require warrants (and have a consititutional amendment protecting us) because we *know* that's a bad policy.

"miniscule" possibility of abuse?! (2, Funny)

disc-chord (232893) | about 13 years ago | (#2213827)

While it is true that this is just another hysterical /. story in which the poster saw a headline and just put it up without reading the article...

I think Carnivore is alot larger than a "miniscule possibility of abuse" ... it represents an "actuall violation of privacy". I would not ban law enforcement because of this, I just want law enforcement to play fair. How would you like to play Cops & Robbers where the cops get to have unfair advantages like not having to play by the rules they are supposed to be enforcing? That's no fun, that's cheating! Criminals are people too, stop taking away all their fun.

Ahem... (2)

GMontag (42283) | about 13 years ago | (#2213996)

Ahem... actually, I did read the article. What portion of it do you *assume* that I missed?

BTW, the title that I submitted was "DCS100 aka Carnivour goes wireless!"


"The Washington Post Tech Section is running this story FBI's 'Carnivore'
Might Target Wireless Text.


Humm... can't be that part...

Apparently, since the industry can't provide big brothering to the satisfaction of the FBI the FBI will will do it *for* them.

Was not a quote from the article, it alludes to the industry itself saying that it can not meet a 30 Sept. deadline for providing eavesdropping services to the FBI.

This is a collector's item too,
with no mention in article of DCS1000 being used to "save" children!"


Perhaps you saw a "save the children" refrence that I am still missing?

Re:*sigh* (3, Interesting)

stuccoguy (441799) | about 13 years ago | (#2213858)

It is true that the FBI must get a court order in order to use Carnivore to intercept the contents of a suspect's communications. Under most circumstances this would be a satisfactory due process safeguard against abuse. In fact, it has been the status quo for preventing abuse by law enforcement for decades.


This is not the case with Carnivore. The system captures all trafic on the network based on protocol. A court order to intercept the contents of John Doe's email could also result in the capture of your email if it happens to be crossing the same network.


After the packets have been captured they are filtered to present a set of emails to and from the subject of the court order, but your email and the email of hundreds of other innocent individuals is already sitting on the FBI's computer waiting to be misused or abused.


And the threat of abuse of that information is hardly miniscule. This is the organization that withheld thousand of documents in the timothy mcveigh trial, attempted to railroad Wen Ho Lee as a spy for taking his work home with him, kept dossiers on thousands of politicians, businessmen and regular citizens for political motives, murdered Randy Weaver's wife and son, and massacred 33 women and children at Waco.

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213951)

And the threat of abuse of that information is hardly miniscule. This is the organization that withheld thousand of documents in the timothy mcveigh trial, attempted to railroad Wen Ho Lee as a spy for taking his work home with him, kept dossiers on thousands of politicians, businessmen and regular citizens for political motives, murdered Randy Weaver's wife and son, and massacred 33 women and children at Waco.

I feel compelled to point out that while I'm not familiar with all of the above occurrences, the ones that I am familiar with (mcveigh, weaver, waco) are instances where I do not empathize with the people involved much if at all. McVeigh was insane and murderous, and even his defense admitted that the withheld documents amounted to absolutely nothing that could have helped him. David whats-his-name from Waco and Randy Weaver weren't upstanding citizens, meaning specifically that their behavior was something that I believe was dangerous and should be stopped, and they made it so difficult to stop them civilly that they died... and (I don't say this lightly, but) that's ok with me.

I am not making a point about the FBI's trustworthiness. What I'm saying is that if there aren't any better examples with which to illustrate the potential for the abuses of power, then this is as far as I think the message deserves to go.

Re:*sigh* (4, Interesting)

stuccoguy (441799) | about 13 years ago | (#2214102)

What I'm saying is that if there aren't any better examples with which to illustrate the potential for the abuses of power, then this is as far as I think the message deserves to go.

Very well...here are a few more:


* DICK GREGORY: In 1968, the activist/comedian publicly denounced the Mafia for importing heroin into the inner city. Did the FBI welcome the anti-drug, anti-mob message? No. Head G-man J. Edgar Hoover responded by proposing that the Bureau try to provoke the mob to retaliate against Gregory as part of an FBI "counter intelligence operation" to "neutralize" the comedian. Hoover wrote: "Alert La Cosa Nostra (LCN) to Gregory's attack on LCN."
* FREEDOM RIDERS: In 1961, black and white civil rights workers boarded interstate buses in the North and headed south in an effort to desegregate buses nationwide. The FBI learned that when the freedom riders reached bus depots in Alabama, the state police were going to give the Ku Klux Klan "15 uninterrupted minutes" to beat activists with baseball bats, clubs and chains. The Bureau allowed the violence to occur; activist Walter Bergman spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair, partially paralyzed.
* VIOLA LIUZZO: The white civil rights volunteer from Detroit-a mother of five-joined Martin Luther King's 1965 Selma (Ala.) campaign aimed at securing the right to vote for blacks. She was shot and killed after being chased 20 miles at high speed by a carload of four Klansmen. In the car was Gary David Rowe, a well-paid FBI informant inside the Klan; the violence-prone Rowe had played a big role in the beatings of freedom riders years earlier. "He couldn't be an angel and be a good informant," commented one of his FBI handlers.
* FRANK WILKINSON: A lifelong civil libertarian who led the campaign to abolish the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, his FBI surveillance file spans 30 years and 132,000 pages. Estimated cost to us taxpayers: $17 million. Wilkinson never advocated or committed violence, but the file shows that the Bureau burglarized his offices and encouraged beatings of him. The FBI once heard of a right-wing scheme to assassinate Wilkinson-but took no action to inform him or protect him.
* MARTIN LUTHER KING: For years, the FBI used spying and infiltration in a relentless campaign to destroy King- to wreck his marriage, undermine his mental stability and encourage him to commit suicide. The Bureau created dissension among King's associates, disrupted fundraising efforts and recruited his bookkeeper as a paid agent after learning the employee was embezzling.
The FBI utilized "media assets" to plant smear stories in the press - some insinuating that King was a Soviet agent. One FBI media asset against King in the early 1960s was Patrick Buchanan, then an editorial writer in St. Louis.
The FBI once hatched a scheme to "completely discredit" King and have him replaced by a civil rights leader the Bureau could control. The one individual named by the Bureau as "the right kind of Negro leader" was lawyer Samuel Pierce-who years later became the only black in President Reagan's cabinet.
King was hated and regularly threatened by white supremacists and extremists-but the FBI developed a written policy of not informing King about threats to his life. Why? Because of his "unsavory character," "arrogance and "uncooperative attitude."
* PETER BOHMER: For months in the early 1970s, this economics professor and other antiwar activists in San Diego were terrorized-with menacing phone calls, death threats and fire-bombings-by the Secret Army Organization, a right-wing paramilitary group. On Jan. 6, 1972, gunshots were fired into Bohmer's house, wounding a friend.
After a bombing months later, a trial revealed that Howard Barry Godfrey, co-founder of SAO in San Diego and one of its most active and violent members, had all along been a paid FBI informant. Godfrey testified that he had driven the car from which the shots were fired; afterward, he took the weapon to his FBI supervisor, who hid it.
* BLACK PANTHER PARTY: Some critics are denouncing the new movie Panther as an anti-FBI fantasy. But the hard facts about the FBI's war on the Panthers were published in 1976 by the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Frank Church. Using paid infiltrators and faked documents, the Bureau routinely tried to goad militant groups or street gangs to commit violence against the Panthers.
In southern California, FBI agents helped provoke Ron Karenga's militant US group into attacks on Panthers and boasted about it in memos to headquarters. When the FBI learned that the Panthers and US were trying to talk out their differences, agents did their best to reopen the conflict. Four Panthers were ultimately killed by US members, two on the UCLA campus.
In Chicago, the FBI office forged and sent a letter to the Blackstone Rangers gang leader saying the Panthers had a "hit out" on him. The FBI's stated hope was that he "take reprisals against" the Panther leadership.
Although that plan failed, Chicago Panther chief Fred Hampton (age 21) was killed months later in a predawn police assault on his apartment. Hampton's bodyguard turned out to be an FBI agent-provocateur who, days before the raid, had delivered an apartment floor-plan to the Bureau-with an "X" marking Hampton's bed. Most bullets were aimed at his bedroom. The infiltrator received a $300 bonus: "Our source was the man who made the raid possible," stated an FBI memo.
Among the hundreds of schemes detailed in FBI memos were plans to contaminate the Panther newspaper's printing room with a noxious chemical; to inject a powerful laxative into fruit served to kids as part of the Panthers' free breakfast program; and to target smear campaigns at various Hollywood celebrities who had come to the Panthers' defense.
* CENTRAL AMERICA ACTIVISTS: Many recent news accounts say that FBI abuse pretty much ended with J. Edgar Hoover's death in 1972, and that the Bureau has been in check since the Justice Department issued new guidelines in 1976. Not true. FBI disruption of lawful dissent has continued-though the terminology has changed, from counterintelligence (COINTELPRO) to "counterterrorism."
During the 1980s, groups critical of U.S. intervention in Central America were surveilled, infiltrated and disrupted by the FBI. Political break-ins occurred at churches, offices and homes-and material from the burglaries ended up in FBI files. In the guise of monitoring supporters of foreign terrorists, the FBI compiled files on clergy, religious groups and thousands of nonviolent anti-intervention activists. The investigation produced not a single criminal charge. The whole sordid story is detailed in Break-ins, Death Threats and the FBI, a book by former Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan.

from the book Wizards of Media Oz [amazon.com] .

Re:*sigh* (1)

Steve B (42864) | about 13 years ago | (#2214122)

the ones that I am familiar with (mcveigh, weaver, waco) are instances where I do not empathize with the people involved much if at all.


I am not familiar with the clause in the Constitution that exempts people with whom you do not empathize.

Re:*sigh* (2, Interesting)

Stickster (72198) | about 13 years ago | (#2214032)

You are indeed underinformed, but that's typical of /.ers these days. The packets are filtered but then pursuant to the actual court order and normal Title III wiretap regulations the non-pertinent traffic is not retained "sitting on the FBI's computer" [sic] for later use. The irrelevant traffic must be discarded at the time of filtering.

Your obviously polemic (and clearly incorrect) comments at the end of your post don't even bear up to the slightest modicum of common sense. Do yourself a favor and don't believe everything you read or hear. Remember that the news media is a BUSINESS, not a public service. They have no motivation to report truth, especially when it doesn't generate good ratings.

Miniscule possibility of Abuse (4, Interesting)

Bonker (243350) | about 13 years ago | (#2213880)

Heh...

This attitude never ceases to amaze me.

Once upon a time, when I was sixteen years old and driving home from my girlfriend's house one evening, I was pulled over by a police officer in what could be called the bad side of the town. Although North Amarillo is still a fairly nice neighborhood, it does have a slightly higher crime rate and lower property values than the south side.

Thinking to my self... 'I wonder why I've been pulled over?' I remained calm because I had done nothing. What could I possibly have to fear from a uniformed law enforcement officer when I hadn't done anything wrong.

Said officer pulled me from the car at gunpoint and shoved my face into the asphalt... the gun pressed into the base of my skull... while he cuffed me and frisked me. He threw me into the back of his patrol car and then illegally searched my car.

I learned later that he did all this because there had been reports of a 'drive by shooting' in my girlfriend's neighborhood. My car matched the description, so in the cop's mind I was a dangerous unknown... dangerous enough to hold a gun to my head. He felt he had 'probable cause' to search my car for firearms based on an anonymous 911 call.

An attourney later told me candidly that I had very little chance to win a court case because the policeman released me after searching my car and the judges were all highly sympathetic to the police.

Now, what lessons should we all learn from this?

1. American criminal and police law is not designed to protect innocence. It's designed to punish the criminal.

2. Police will do their best to uphold that law out of honor, duty, hate, fear, or any other of a hundred positive or negative reasons.

3. Police don't care about innocents who get hurt or get their civil rights violated, so long as *they* aren't hurt and *their* jobs don't become any harder. There's a reason we have the term 'Police State'

4. Power breeds corruption. Any given law enforcement agency may have a policy against abuse, but almost all law enforcement officers will abuse their power in one way or the other.

I'm not the only one who things these things. There's a reason we have the fourth amendment, after all.

Re:Miniscule possibility of Abuse (2, Insightful)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | about 13 years ago | (#2214070)

I was going to quote one section, but can't narrow it down.

I am truly sorry that you were not the right person. And yes, it was unfortunate that you were in the 'wrong place at the wrong time.' But, as much as I believe in individual liberties, if I was that cop I would have done the same thing.

I work in computers, but have spent 4 1/2 years as a firefighter as well. I am 22 and have seen a lot more than I would like. Like the outright murder of not one, but three police officers (two Tampa detective and one Highway Patrolman) as well as recently another murder of a Tampa Police Officer. Why? Because they did not do exactly what the police officer above did.

Let's play what if. What if you would have been that shooter? What if the officer had a report the shooter had high-caliber weapons? What if the report also involved possible other shootings? What if you had not been the shooter, but had a gun?

Unfortunately, because we are all human, mistakes are made. You were not held illegally, not tortured, nor beaten, you were 'secured' via a legal method of takedown in a possibly hostile situation. And if I was in your situation (and I have been) I would only be upset if the police officer would have continued to hold me for hours, or would not have released me, or would have had no reason at all.

As far as your points? I am not even going to start on them. I can say that you appear not to even know a Police Officer or (obviously) be one. As I tell people who complain about how open source projects are going, if you don't like it, do something about it. Don't sit on your freakin' butt and come up with reasons to make you feel better about yourself. Go out and do something. Become an officer. Put YOUR life on the line. Or help those that do. See how it feels to arrive on the scene of a shot officer, to see the destruction caused by it. To do everything you can and it not be enough. Do that, then come back and see how your viewpoints are.

Re:Miniscule possibility of Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2214110)

Become an officer. Put YOUR life on the line. Or help those that do. See how it feels to arrive on the scene of a shot officer, to see the destruction caused by it. To do everything you can and it not be enough. Do that, then come back and see how your viewpoints are.

Hear! Hear!

Damn right. I'd like to see the parent poster in the same situation facing a possibly armed, homicidal drive-byer, and have him politely ask the guy to step out of the car.

Re:Miniscule possibility of Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2214166)

You were not held illegally, not tortured, nor beaten

Bullshit.

So, one should be happy about not getting held illegally, not tortured nor beaten by the police? It really doesn't matter if the put a gun against your head and shove your face against the ground to "protect themselves"?

You're full of crap. I've been abused by the police in this fashion more than once. If I just can help it, I try to make their job hell. I'll be a difficult jury member, sue them no matter what the cost and so on.

Fuck the pigs!

Re:Miniscule possibility of Abuse (2)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | about 13 years ago | (#2214085)

Once upon a time, [... blah story]

Thus illustrating the danger of anecdotal evidence. I wasn't there, I don't know all the details. However, when I say "miniscule possibility", I am saying that statistically this just doesn't happen that often. Does it happen? Of course. Does that mean we should ban law enforcement? No. Does it mean we should continue to watch them very carefully? Yes.

And does it mean we should "handcuff" law enforcement because of the *possibility* of abuse? Absolutely not.

Now, what lessons should we all learn from this?

That police are human, not perfect, and will possibly err on the side of caution when their life is in real danger. Sorry, but I can't say that I wouldn't have done exactly the same thing, particularly if it occurred in a dangerous neighborhood (which presumably it was if you have drive-by shootings). Personally, I would rather live and apologize, than die knowing I didn't frighten a possible innocent.

Re:Miniscule possibility of Abuse (2)

Frederic54 (3788) | about 13 years ago | (#2214185)

reminds me Robocop... which has better laws

1 - serve the public trust
2 - protect the innocent
3 - uphold the law
4 - classified :o)

Re:*sigh* (3, Interesting)

sphealey (2855) | about 13 years ago | (#2213895)

I think most people in the Western world understand court orders and the need for law enforcement. There are two minor problems, however:

* Law enforcement and the judiciary form a pretty much closed loop system. They come from similar backgrounds, they consider themselves the "good guys", and they prohibit investiations into their own motives/failures/biases. So when there is a problem with a request for a warrent the odds are that the judiciary will approve the request anyway.

* If you have spent much time with law enforcement people, you know that the "observe crime/gather evidence/make arrest" model isn't the only one they use. The "suspect crime/fish around for something/use something to get warrent/intimidate person into confessing or giving up someone else" model is pretty common, too. And the methods used to find "something" are not always pretty, legal, or constitutional.

In the past, while this behaviour may have been bad, it wasn't totally corrosive, because the ability to fish around for "something" was limited by the overall difficulty of gathering information.

The technologies being develped today, in contrast, make it quite easy to fish for whatever one wants to find. And since there are laws affecting just about every action (I am willing to bet you have violated 5 federal laws already today), the widespread availability of this technology gets more than a bit scary.

sPh

Re:*sigh* (1)

eclarkso (179502) | about 13 years ago | (#2213992)

* Law enforcement and the judiciary form a pretty much closed loop system. They come from similar backgrounds, they consider themselves the "good guys", and they prohibit investiations into their own motives/failures/biases. So when there is a problem with a request for a warrent the odds are that the judiciary will approve the request anyway.

I think most people wouldn't consider police and judges/lawyers as coming from anything close to similar backgrounds. Police are generally come from working-class backgrounds, while lawyers (and especially judges) are generally more upper crust.

Judges are sympathetic to warrant requests, but not because of their backgrounds.

Re:*sigh* (1)

Kryptonomic (161792) | about 13 years ago | (#2214093)

It's a question of the psychlogical profile.:

"Right now you're thinking in terms of not being a rat regarding your friends. Let me tell you a few things: first, they are not your friends to get you in a fix like this. You don't owe them a thing. Second, you have a duty to do your part to keep this society together. You need to face this like a man and do the right thing as you were rised and trained to do".

To most law enforcement personnel, this argument makes complete sense. Everybody has a duty to do whatever possible to make the world a better place. They learned this at home and had it reinforced by various social institutions such as the church, school, scouts, and the military. Thus, an interrogator might think: "How can anybody not see this? Everybody knows this. I'm merely verbalizing the obvious so the subject will find it easy to agree."

-John E. Hess, "Interviewing and Interrogation for Law Enforcement" (ISBN 0-87084-348-6).

Re:*sigh* (1)

sphealey (2855) | about 13 years ago | (#2214098)

"I think most people wouldn't consider police and judges/lawyers as coming from anything close to similar backgrounds. Police are generally come from working-class backgrounds, while lawyers (and especially judges) are generally more upper crust"

If you are talking about original background, perhaps, although in Chicago policeman => watch officer => night law school => assistant prosecutor => judge is a pretty common life path. Supreme Court justices probably went to Yale, but there are a lot of judgeships in the nation and most of them are local in scope.

However, by "background" in this case I ment a career of dealing with "perps" and "mopes" in very a lengthy series of very unpleasant encounters, building a shared worldview of us-against-them. See _Bonfire of the Vanities_ for a good ficational description.

sPh

Cointelpro and Filegate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213942)

What part of "subject to court order" don't you understand?

This part. [icdc.com]

"The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist, hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership, and supporters, and to counter their propensity for violence and civil disorder. The activities of all such groups of intelligence interest to this Bureau must be followed on a continuous basis so we will be in a position to promptly take advantage of all opportunities for counterintelligence and to inspire action in instances where circumstances warrant."

This part. [go.com]

"In June of 1996, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno asked that the Whitewater independent counsel's mandate be expanded to include an investigation of how the Clinton White House had come to hold about 900 files on former Reagan and Bush appointees. The files had been gathered in 1993 and 1994 by Livingstone, then-White House director of personnel security, and his aide, Anthony Marceca. The White House has always contended that the acquisition of the files resulted from a series of bureaucratic blunders and that there was no evidence that anyone was trying to dig up dirt on political enemies."

That's the tip of the iceberg. That's the part you can see in public. Imagine the daily abuse of FBI intelligence gathering that hasn't made the national news yet.

Re:Cointelpro and Filegate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2214115)

Imagine the daily abuse of FBI intelligence gathering that hasn't made the national news yet.

"We were only following orders".

I don't see any problem with that. Don't blame the FBI for legitimate orders.

"WEED" out data (1)

kenbr (211392) | about 13 years ago | (#2213706)

"But Sobel and Altschul said Carnivore cannot separate address information from the content of a message in a packet, and so authorities must be trusted to weed out data they are not allowed by law to have."

What could they gain by only reading the packet headers? The content is what they really want.

Too bad that doesn't work both ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2214160)

I wouldn't mind being trusted to gather all sorts of drugs and then WEED out what sorts of drugs I was allowed to have.

Or better yet, gather all sorts of women, and then weed out the ones that weren't my wife.

Or gather all sorts of weapons and then weed out the ones I wasn't allowed to have.

Or best yet, gather all sorts of money, and then weed out that which wasn't mine.

no diffrent than.... (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | about 13 years ago | (#2213725)

this is no diffrent than a wire tape on a conventional phone line, they will still need to get a warent to do it so if your not breaking(or known to be breaking) the law don't worry.

Camera! (1)

Maskirovka (255712) | about 13 years ago | (#2213728)

But I always thought DCS1000 was a Sony digital camera. Isn't this infringing on Sony's intelectual property?

Maskirovka

Ok...bad joke.

Clarification (2, Informative)

ViceClown (39698) | about 13 years ago | (#2213731)

Here's a point I have been meaning to make for awhile. My uncle does computer fraud investigations for the FBI. Yes, that's right - he's a fed. I brought up this topic to him at our last family function. What most people don't realize is that Carnivore is actually going to be less restrictive than old procedures. If the FBI or one if it's investigators wants to subpeona email know what they do? They take the whole server. They take all the email and just route through until they find what they want. The point is they take it all and have access to anyone and everyone who went through that box. With Carnivore they can pick out who they are looking for through standard procedures and as long as you are not a fedral criminal you have nothing to worry about. Frankly, if that helps stop bombs from going off at olympic games and helps track down illegal malitias, hate groups, etc. then Im all for it!

Re:Clarification (1)

fishebulb (257214) | about 13 years ago | (#2213782)

okay, cameras in everyones houses will help stop drug use, domestic violence etc etc etc. At what point does it go to far. before it begins

Re:Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213849)

Militias are legal... it's in our right to raise a militia.. do you not know the rights we are given? In fact we are given this right to raise a militia to allow "We the people.." to control our government. In the case of our government needing to be overthrown. We have the right to overthrow our government through several means.. one of which is by raising a militia and physically overtaking the establishment. Now of course, peacefull means (IMHO) are better. But I'll be darned if I'm going to give up one of my rights as a natural born citizen of the United States.

Re:Clarification (1)

ViceClown (39698) | about 13 years ago | (#2213875)

That's why I said the "illegal" ones. There's a difference. Sorry I kinda hacked my reply out kinda fast. I understand civil rights and Im really ornry about people taking away mine. We have to find a happy medium, though. I don't want to walk into a pizza parlor and have a bomb go off. In that light I didn't really disagree with the camera recognition systems at the last superbowl either. The good's outweigh the potential bads IMHO. Either way, thanks for reading. Have a nice day :-)

Re:Clarification (1)

fishebulb (257214) | about 13 years ago | (#2213890)

there is no illegal militias, its impossible. militias can do illegal things, but that comes back to the individual people. the militia is still legal.

Re:Clarification (2, Insightful)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about 13 years ago | (#2213891)

>as long as you are not a fedral criminal you have nothing to worry about

Tell your uncle that, after Richard Nixon and J Edgar Hoover's reign, the FBI has got a HELL of a job ahead of them if they plan to convince anyone
of the truth of that statement.

the dignified history of the FBI (2)

nido (102070) | about 13 years ago | (#2213929)

... there was an article [mises.org] recently on mises.org on the FBI's "great tradition" (GWB's term). I don't know that I want those people protecting me from olympic park bombings (they did that one real well...) or tracking me down for imaginary crimes.


"If you're not a criminal you have nothing to worry about" - famous last words. See this story. [slashdot.org]

Re:Clarification (1)

nestler (201193) | about 13 years ago | (#2214052)

Frankly, if that helps stop bombs from going off at olympic games and helps track down illegal malitias, hate groups, etc. then Im all for it!

This is exactly the non-sense that keeps average people in support of things like Carnivore: the false sense of security. Hard-core terrorists have been using encryption for a while, and aren't going to be bothered by Carnivore.

Terrorism is the boogeyman that they always bring out to justify increased surveillance. The end result is a loss in privacy and no effect on stopping intelligent criminals.

Re:Clarification (1)

Aexia (517457) | about 13 years ago | (#2214059)

Frankly, if that helps stop bombs from going off at olympic games

And we all know how well *that* case was handled by the Feds.

There's just a litany of mistakes(and worse) that the FBI has done. Some of them may not have changed things in the end but they do point to a certain attitude of "We don't give a sh*t."

Like the thousands of pages they just sort of forgot to give to McVeigh. If they pull these sort of stunts in a high-profile case like this, imagine what they're doing with anonymous cases involving people who may really be innocent.

Frankly, I'd rather not have people like that have something like Carnivore. The FBI, as an agency, has shown repeatedly it can't be trusted and until it gets cleaned up from the top-down, people have every right to be suspicious.

Man, it's getting bad (1)

ReidMaynard (161608) | about 13 years ago | (#2213745)

If only we could influence the US Congress like the end of Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor [amazon.com] ...


Harrison Ford as US President would be a wonderful bonus ;-)

Re:Man, it's getting bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213789)

are they gonna make that into a movie? and I still think they need to redo Red October with ford in it instead of baldwin

Re:Man, it's getting bad (1)

disc-chord (232893) | about 13 years ago | (#2213796)

Uhhh I just finished Debt of Honor... and without giving away the ending to anyone that hasn't read it yet I'll post in pig-latin.

reay ouyay uggestingsay eway illkay hetay ongresscay? Tiay ouldway akemay orfay oodgay elevisiontay, nday CNN ouldway ebay ovelay ouya orfay tiay... utbay hey'lltay ustjay eplaceray 'em.

So what does that accomplish?

Re:Man, it's getting bad (1)

Maskirovka (255712) | about 13 years ago | (#2213904)

Just who do you think would replace the congress critters, eh? That scenario (Executive Orders) would require having a real MAN in office, not some pot-headed, DWI convicted, playboy like dUHbya. Dream on.

Maskirovka

From the Washington Post Recently (1)

ChuckDivine (221595) | about 13 years ago | (#2213752)

There's an article about the persecution of a CIA officer [washingtonpost.com] in connection with the Hanssen spy case. They picked out the wrong man and harrassed him and his family for two years. Competent investigation would have demonstrated his innocence quickly.

Then there is the article on Al Gore, Sr. [washingtonpost.com] He drew the FBI's fire for complaining about the treatment of a woman accused of the "crime" of having engaged in premarital sex.

You might want to check out your favorite bookseller for books on the FBI as well.

People who say "If you're innocent, you do have anything to worry about" should consider who is deciding what is innocent and what is not.

Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213753)

Fuck those corrupted government assholes trying
to pocket money. They develop shit, release it, claim that it's dangerous, and use up tax money to protect us from what they made.
We should all organize and overthrow those motherfuckers before it's too late. Oops, it already is too late.

Re:Argh (0)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | about 13 years ago | (#2213823)

True that man! I vote we have a REVOLUTION!! Our first revolutionary act will be to smoke cigarettes behind the cafeteria during 6th period, and egg the principals car!! ANARCHY RULZ!

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213763)

Wasn't there an article about DirecTV piracy where some people commented about it being OK to intercept because the signals pass through their property? How is this different?

You fool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213792)

you think any of these irrational morons will care about consistency and logical analysis? They are children, my friend. They ONLY care about what they WANT. Their need to justify comes from their need to shut up their conscience and convince themselves.

Aren't the telcos mostly there? (3, Interesting)

ethereal (13958) | about 13 years ago | (#2213765)

This seems a little suspicious to me - from what I've heard, most of the wireless providers are well on their way to providing the federally-mandated wiretapping access. They can't be very far off from completing the technical setup that is involved. It seems like the Feds are useing the missed deadline (which really was an artificial deadline anyway) as a convenient excuse to expand their wiretapping powers. It's not like there were crimes that just had to be wiretapped on September 30; as long as the wireless carriers get things rolled out reasonably soon I don't see how the government could legitimately complain.

And yes, anyone can tap wireless, but the issue is what can be used in court. If the government is sucking in more information, then there's more of a chance that a bad judge somewhere can be found who will let unrelated intercepted information into evidence.

Of course, since you have no privacy right on a land-line phone either [politechbot.com] , maybe Carnivore isn't such a big deal either :)

didn't they already do this once? (1)

JDizzy (85499) | about 13 years ago | (#2213805)

I seem to remember back when digital cell phones first becauem populare inthe USA, that the FBI authored, and sponsored a bill in congress that would allow them to force digital cell phone providers with the means to descamble the digital signals. You see, digital cell phones are actually difficult to snoop since the signals are digital, unlike the older analog phones. The FBI was mad that they coudlnt' use their radio-shack scanners to snoop your conversations, they actually have to put forth effort int he form of computer systems that took time to descramble the dgital signals, and by then the call was over. Further complicating the issues was the fact that just descambling the signal wasn't really enough because you conversation was embeded amonst hundreds of other conversations.

If memory servers me right, the FBI got what they wanted, and this only amounted to them having to get a warrant, and then the phone company could then be forced to comply with the goverment spooks.

AS I read the article, this provision appears to take that law to the next step. Premtive sniffing ability. The FBI has a huge convinence by this, as when they get a warrent, they simply open their ears, as opposed to the insecure method of askignt he phone company to allow this.

Um, so?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213812)

what exactly is the problem with the use of court ordered surveillance? It's not like the FBI is asking for unfettered access; now that would be a story. This is just the same tired old "oh no, the FBI/NSA/govt is keeping pace with technology and that's a bad thing (tm)" rant.

Technology threw a couple of chips into the pot. The Feds have called.

Carnivore FUD (4, Interesting)

sourcehunter (233036) | about 13 years ago | (#2213821)

Look folks, I have some friends who work at the FBI - not agents, but the guys who actually setup and maintain the carnivore system, go on raids WITH the agents to make sure the computers are handled successfully, and parse through 100's of GB of data after a raid to determine what is of and what isn't. (this goes against common misconception #1 that the agents actually sort through the data - they do not - they have a computer guy do it).

One day, I asked my friends about carnivore.

Carnivore is a very simple system - TCPDump, a filter, and a sort utility. It is a black box administered from remote, setup at their office.

The filter is setup to only record a handfull of things - a) email communications to or from a suspect as specified in a warrant or b) packets to or from a certain IP address designated by the warrant.

It does not capture and save every packet going across the wire - that would be illegal.

Let me say that again, as it bears repeating - It does not capture and save every packet going across the wire.

Yes, in a TCPDump, all packets are going to be pulled that hit the network interface, but the filter will only save the packets that meet a certain criteria.

They developed this with the WHOLE IDEA of making DAMN sure they stay within the confines of their warrants - because otherwise, they are breaking the law. Also, they would have to go through 100's of GB of data if they captured EVERY packet at a standard ISP. At an ISP like mindspring, the amount of data captured would be unfathomable.

The computer guys actually know how to set the thing up properly, so you don't have to rely on the standard Liberal Arts/Criminal Justice major FBI agent to understand what he or she is doing. All the agent might do is drop the big black box off at an ISP, plug in the power cable and network cable, and walk out.

Don't get me wrong - I personally don't like the FBI or its agents. I've had run-ins with them in the past, and the ones I met I didn't like. The guys who deal with this AREN'T agents... they are computer geeks, like you and me. They read /., the game, they program in Perl and other ub3r-1337 h4x0r languages. They know what they are doing, AND they do EVERYTHING in their power to make sure ONLY those communications that they NEED and are supposed to HAVE get captured.

Re:Carnivore FUD (0)

buttfucker2000 (240799) | about 13 years ago | (#2213952)

I don't believe anything you say, I can't hear you "LALALALALALALALALAGOVERNMENT IS EVIL!! GOVERNMENT IS EVIL!! GOVERNMENT IS EVIL!" You were either paid by them to say that, or you're just another dupe; I know better because I discovered the evil government plot to coerce my mother to put mind controlling nanites in my egg salad sandwich, so I told her "GO FUCK YOURSELF AND YOUR EGG SALAD SANDWICH." Luckily they can't use Carnivore on me because my computer is under a tin foil pyramid and is protected by CRYSTAL POWER.

Re:Carnivore FUD (2)

stuccoguy (441799) | about 13 years ago | (#2213971)

It appears that the FBI has been less than candid about the technical aspects of what carnivore can and does do. There are lawsuits and congressional investigations proceeding in an attempt to weed out this very issue. We would be remiss if we assumed that we knew exactly how this system does and does not work.


However, there is evidence [epic.org] to support the fact that both filtered and unfiltered traffic are archived and later sorted.

Re:Carnivore FUD (2)

sphealey (2855) | about 13 years ago | (#2214009)

"It does not capture and save every packet going across the wire - that would be illegal."

It is also illegal to fail to respond to a legitimate Freedom of Information Act request, yet the FBI and CIA do it all the time. What is your friends' justification for that behaviour? If the FBI won't follow that law, why will they follow the law where Carnivore is concerned?

sPh

Reality Check (1)

n0-0p (325773) | about 13 years ago | (#2213831)

This whole scare over Carnivore and other related issues is just uninformed noise. Monitoring email or wireless traffic is no different than authorized telephone wire taps. They are a necesarry tool for law enforcement, and I consider them completely acceptable as long as there is proper discretion and judgement applied to their use, and a reasonable set of checks and balances exists. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies operate within the bounds of our laws; if they violate these laws there are severe forms of reprimand. Given that, would be more dangerous not to allow them the tools necesarry to do their jobs.

mmm... cookie... (1)

thePfhitz (446594) | about 13 years ago | (#2213846)

But Sobel and Altschul said Carnivore cannot separate address information from the content of a message in a packet, and so authorities must be trusted to weed out data they are not allowed by law to have.

This is like saying to a kid, "We'll sit this cookie and these lima beans in front of you, but we're trusting you to only eat your lima beans and not even look at that cookie!"

And what about how using Echelon to spy on US citizens [icdc.com] was circumvented by intercepting the information and giving it to foreign groups, which would do the same with their info? Who's to say that this info isn't going to be handed over just like that?

Re:mmm... cookie... (1)

n0-0p (325773) | about 13 years ago | (#2213907)

Do you have any idea how strict the regulations are regarding intelligence collection and dissemination? Do a little research and you'll find out that someone working for the government can go to jail for a very long time for collecting information illegally. The laws don't leave much gray area there. How about doing a little honest fact checking and not spreading rumors and propaganda. If you're genuinely curious fas.org has useful information and for further clarification there's always Freedom of Information Act requests.

Re:mmm... cookie... (2)

sphealey (2855) | about 13 years ago | (#2213990)

"Do you have any idea how strict the regulations are regarding intelligence collection and dissemination? Do a little research and you'll find out that someone working for the government can go to jail for a very long time for collecting information illegally"

Sort of like the Detroit police department? While what you say is technically true (a) the perp would have to be discovered (b) the crime would have to be reported (very unlikely due to the "code of silence" in all tight-knit professions (c) management would have to take action {see (b)} (d) the action would have to be prosecuted.

I do see the need for law enforcement, and I do respect the job that most law enforcement officers carry out.

Unfortunately, the power inherent in law enforcement is so, well, powerful, that when it is abused the results are very bad for the victim. And I am afraid there are quite a lot of documented abuses (Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, and the IRS anyone?).

The next step (1)

JDizzy (85499) | about 13 years ago | (#2213854)

I belive the public will eventually see the need for more encryption in their everyday lives.... For example, the digital phones introduced a higher level of security compared to the analog phones, and I recall thsi being a selling point for those. Now in thsi day and age, the public will soon find the need to encrypt every form of comunication they participate with. Eventually web servers, for example, will be strong enought to use pure ssl for all communications, once the ability to generated the shear volume of random seed is at the proper level.

What I'm gettign at is that RC4, or RC5, encryption will eventually be a feature on all cell phones as the cost of fabricating the chips to do this fall to reasonable levels. The 802.11 folsk have already done this for my WaveLAN card, and some European comanies have also started selling crypto-phones, crypt-walkie-talkies, and other high-end comm gear. The problem is that the crypto must be a point to point system, never needing to relly on the public key of the tower, bt tower to node crypto is also a good counter-measure on teh part of the phone companies.

Of cource the FBI, and NSA, percieve the use of crypto as only being used for criminal activity. I mean to say that if you have to encrypt your communications, then what exactly do you have to hide? The gotch-a is that if everybody were to use crypto by default, the issues would be moot. The infrastyructure to decypher everyones cell phones would take a cluster of quantume computers or something drastic like that. And the Entire cell phone using public would essentially be considered criminal by the FBI, and NSA, as that is ther presumtion about keeping secrets from them.

As it stands now, cell phone towser trunk all their customers conversations into a massif data-stream in the CO office, and you cannot simply single out the bad apples of the bunch. The very nature of the technology prevents that as to gain some compression advanges in the digital technology.

Re:The next step (1)

fishebulb (257214) | about 13 years ago | (#2213913)

The NSA doesnt give a damn about crypto. if its out there, im willing to bet they can crack it. the FBI on the other hand cant crack it so they need laws. The FBI has never been extremely technically knowledgeable. the NSA they have the best and the brightest with the machinary behind them

I don't have anything to hide. (1)

ghislain_leblanc (450723) | about 13 years ago | (#2213860)

Why would that be a concern if you got nothing to hide? I mean, Big Brother is not so bad if you are a lay abbiding citizen and even if you are not, I don't think he cares much about you smoking drugs or going over speed limit.

Re:I don't have anything to hide. (1)

Aexia (517457) | about 13 years ago | (#2214105)

Then you won't mind if Big Bro installs a GPS device in your car to track how fast you're driving. If you go over the limit, automatic fine!

After all, you're just a law abiding citizen, right?

(FYI, a rental car company(ACME) did just that.)

And if this system helps the government track your movements as a bonus, well, we can trust them to discard this information.

There already is a Wireless Carnivore! (2)

V50 (248015) | about 13 years ago | (#2213862)

The FBI has already got a Wireless Carnivore [i-want-a-website.com] . It only effects CPIP right now, but it's a disturbing start.

What would Ben say? (1)

Bizzaro (14691) | about 13 years ago | (#2213869)

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Offtopic: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213888)

Please go vote [zdnet.com] in this ZDNet poll!

I'm fine with this... (1)

moniker_21 (414164) | about 13 years ago | (#2213899)

I've been thinking about Carnivore a lot lately and it's not so repulsive as I first imagined it to be. They probably should have picked a much more PR name for this then the connotation that Carnivore invokes, but I digress. From what I've read Carnivore only filters/captures data (wireless or otherwise) from specifically targeted individuals. It would reason to stand that the villains of tomorrow will use the Internet (are already using the Internet) to plan, coordinate, and research their illegal activities.

If Carnivore can stop someone from shooting up a school where my kid is, without ever having to look at my data, then I have no beef with Carnivore. Yes, the thought of the Feds being able to snoop on your online data is scary, but it's the price we have to pay for safety. They need a warrant to enter your house, and they need a warrant to use Carnivore to snoop on your data, it's really nothing new.

Re:I'm fine with this... (1)

Steve B (42864) | about 13 years ago | (#2213980)

From what I've read Carnivore only filters/captures data (wireless or otherwise) from specifically targeted individuals.


From what I've heard, Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky and Gary Condit is a dedicated family man.

Re:I'm fine with this...Who are you? (1)

codepunk (167897) | about 13 years ago | (#2214106)

If you wish to stop school shootings you do not do it by infringing my personal rights. The government is using sick examples for a reason to infringe everyones rights.

Re:I'm fine with this... (1)

Aexia (517457) | about 13 years ago | (#2214120)

If Carnivore can stop someone from shooting up a school where my kid is

Honestly, do you really think Carnivore would stop that? If the Feds had cause to think a kid was going to shoot up a school, they won't need Carnivore to prove it. Or, more likely, they won't be checking the kid's e-mail until *after* the fact.

Plutonium, uranium, kiddie-porn, terrorism (1)

JasonVergo (101331) | about 13 years ago | (#2213916)

Plutonium, uranium, kiddie-porn, terrorism, bomb making, marijuana, pot, cocaine, J edgar hoover, herion, crack, blowing up, intern sex, kill the president, nuclear bomb, top-secret, russian, meth, lab, electronic bug, whitehouse, mueller bullet, iraq, bin laden, mob,...

I have 2 words to say to you FBI and they ain't merry christmas!

Hello there pedophile friends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213921)

IT IS USED FOR SAVING CHILDREN!

It may come to a surprise for you paraniod slash bots but the FBI is in the bussiness to stop criminals, and pediphiles are one hell of a important category of those assholes.

They don't give a shit about non-criminals, they have more important things to do.

Re:Hello there pedophile friends... (1)

codepunk (167897) | about 13 years ago | (#2214086)

But I am not about to willingly give up my personal protection rights just because someone wants to search for pedophiles. Yes they are a sorry group but dont infringe my rights in the process. That is the problem with america today, we do not need that type of government intervention.

Other countrys (1)

Anthet (462436) | about 13 years ago | (#2213936)

Does any one know what would happen to someone not in the states if the FBI cought something interesting from me on the web for instance. Since i'm not from the states could they even touch me? I guess my government would have a thing or two to say about it since the jail time in the states vs sweden are a lot different etc. Does any one know?

Not getting caught (2)

Katravax (21568) | about 13 years ago | (#2213940)

Okay, how many of us, if we were inclined to do something illegal and talk about it or plan it via e-mail, would send messages Carnivore can see anyway? I don't think the criminals are that stupid, at least not those Carnivore puports to be searching for. I would also think the FBI would brag about any collars they made, in part, because of Carnivore. So where are all the terrorists they've captured?

I think that Carnivore is another attempt at monitoring where a scare tactic was used to get it implemented. It doesn't work on those it's intended to work on, but works fine for those that should not be monitored.

Carnivore vs. DMCA ? (1)

sh64109 (448746) | about 13 years ago | (#2213961)

Carnivore could intercept a copyright-protected transmission without permission from the copyright holder. The fact that it is not intended to do so (at least according to its supporters) and is not supposed to be used for that is moot; if it can, its mere existence is illegal under the DMCA.

Of course, IANAL and with "justice" going to the highest bidder I'm not optimistic about this technicality being worth anything.

Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2213995)

Just goes to prove the need for use of strong encryption for everything, even to just send an email to say hi. Even if they can break the encryption the mass amount of encrypted traffic would make it near impossible to much less feasable to continue with carnavore.

Why so much anger towards Carnivore?? (2)

Sarcasmooo! (267601) | about 13 years ago | (#2214033)

I mean, hello!? Carnivore saves furry little kittens [wired.com] . The real question is; why do Slashdotters endorse the virtual torture and murder of innocent little replicas of a baby kittens??

could?? (2)

canning (228134) | about 13 years ago | (#2214037)

Civil liberties advocates and some lawmakers have expressed concerns because the system could scan private communication about legal activities of others besides those under investigation.

Could scan? Could? It hasn't already? They say this like it's an option that can be turned on or off.

It's virtually email already... (1)

Traicovn (226034) | about 13 years ago | (#2214092)

I don't know how other peoples phones work, but I know that my phones sms is email based anyway, which is what I suspect most networks in the US are using. IMHE (in my humble experience) the only time that I have ever met a network in the US that appears to be using any TRUE based SMS network was Powertel. Now I'm on the east coast, and I know that TRUE-GSM900/1900 sim based PCS systems have been more widely used there *or so I've been told* in my personal experience, out of five different carriers I've used, and dozens my friends have used, our 'SMS' messages have always been sent in email format, just without all the header junk. Seems like this won't really require THAT much modification to the Carnivore system if it works like they say it does.

Of course [BOMB] I am not sure that [Terrorist] [Echelon] Carnivore isn't [2600] anything except a [hacker] paper tiger, [UN] or in this [FBI] case, a paper [Area 51] Dinosaur. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>