IIT's Carnivore Review "A Sham"? 110
plastickiwi writes: "According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S. House of Representatives majority leader Dick Armey is on the warpath about the Illinois Institute of Technology's nascent review-in-progress of the U.S. government's Carnivore technology. Find the article on their site.
'It's a bad idea to have people with clear political ties reviewing a system under political scrutiny,' said a spokesman for Armey. In a prepared statement Armey referred to the review as 'a whitewash.' Ouch."
If you actually READ the article (Score:2)
One stopped working for the Justice Deptartment over 13 years ago, and has since been involved in litigation against the Justice Dept.
The other simply _has_ worked for the Clinton Administration in advising information policy, but has also worked for the Republicans.
I think if you look at the comments being made by the illustrious Congressman's staff, they are simply PR ploys. I honestly don't see the conflict of interest here.
Anyone else have information that shows a conflict of interest? Specific information? Just becasue someone has worked for the government does nto mean they are biased. You could lose a HUGE pool of really talented candidates for any kind of independent study that way.
Everyone has political affiliations, if you stretch it far enough.
The Irony of It All (Score:2)
"Mr. Diamond called it "laughable" that the Justice Department, while struggling to assure the public that Carnivore does not intrude on individuals' privacy, could not protect the privacy of review-team members."
Re:Damn, Hemos! (Score:1)
Censorware (Score:2)
Corby
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:1)
Re:Why worry? (Score:2)
Why worry?
It's the little encroachments that need attention, that's why worry. They grow.
Where do you draw the line?
"It's just e-mail."
How about "it's just a phone call"?
Voice can be digitized and scrambled as well. Do have a phone that does this? I don't. Maybe someday this will be a standard feature of phones. Meanwhile we're careful about who gets to put what on the lines. It's not perfect, but there is some protection of privacy (freedom).
We do not live in a world tolerant of even each other's skin colors or beliefs or even acts that are legal. These are not all readily made private, but the point is the intolerance exists. Thus there is a need to protect freedom by having privacy which at least works for some things. Freedom without privacy would, at the very least, require universal tolerance. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.
I'd like to know, for sure, what Carnivore really does. And how the results will be handled.
What information is really collected?
Can it do more than collect information?
Is it really selectively collected?
If it is selective, how do we know it will stay that way?
Who gets to see it?
Does it get archived?
Who has access to any archive?
What happens if something is "leaked"?
When (not if) Carnivore fails, is it likely to at least fail in a way that won't compromise privacy?
"Trust me." is not good answer to any of those.
I worry because it is far easier to lose freedom than to win it back.
Requiring Virgins... (Score:5)
(ok, the title is probably going to get me marked as a "troll", but I think it's really relevant...)
I'm worried about the level of "purity" we seem to be demanding of anyone these days, in all sorts of situations. The reason I titled this post "Requiring Virgins" is that it almost seems as though we insist on a level of untouchability that no one can reasonably meet. That is, we're back to the "if your daughter's not a virgin on her wedding night, well, she's a slut and obviously not marriagable." It used to be (back in the old, old, days) that if you discovered your wife had actually slept with another man before you married her, it was grounds for instant divorce (and pretty much complete social ostrication); never mind that men slept with anything with 2 tits and a hole (pardon my French).
Two recent examples here on /. : Judge Reinquist's son and the Dean in this story. There may be lots of reasons why IIT is not a good choice for the review, but complaining that someone who isn't doing the review, nor is directly involved in the review in any way once had ties to the DOJ 13 years ago is ludicrous. Likewise, the whole thing about Reinquist and his son (who's so peripherally tied to the MS cases it's silly) is muckraking.
This usually comes up in political cases, where random associates or old-and-forgotten acts are used to tar-and-feather someone unreasonably. But I'm seeing this in lots of other aspects, too. We seems to be expecting that anyone involved in anything we care about has a level of untouchability that only cartoon characters can have. People, if you don't have a "Conflict of Interest", you're not qualified to do it. By this I mean that you can't possibly work in a field without having some ties to something that theoretically might be a "Conflict of Interest". We seem to have lost all reason in judging these things.
I'm tired of living in a society where people seemt to think that the only way to "trust" someone is to have everyone live in a glass house under a microscope all the time. And it's not just corporations and gov't invading our privacy. It's you and me, too, everytime we cry to see something we have no business looking at (fundamentally, why the outcry every time political candidate refuses (or hell, is even late) releasing their tax returns? That's fucking private, and isn't germane to the issue!)
Full disclosure is one thing. However, full disclosure with an anal probe, and being disqualified because you have a pimple on your ass is another. I'm tired of this crap.
-Erik
Re:Why worry? (Score:3)
Just because you are emailing a friend something that you believe is perfectly innocent, yet because of the totalitarian, conservative, fundamentalist laws we have, which number in the thousands (if not higher), most of which you cannot even begin to know, due to the convoluted nature of the language they are drafted in (notwithstanding the sheer number) - what you sent is actually somehow against the law (perhaps it was a letter explaining how to reverse engineer the new Captain Crunch decoder ring, and you fell afoul of the DMCA), and thus you should be brought up on criminal charges.
Why worry indeed...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Why worry? (Score:1)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:1)
HEY NOW!! I love beer!
Lowering the level of public discourse. (Score:1)
What about an ethnic or religious slur?
First of all, I sincerely doubt that you really think that politicians should always speak their mind whatever's on it, especially when it comes to matters like this. That would do nothing but lower the level of public discourse until we're hearing nothing but personal insults. At least in the status quo, they thinly veil things and we have at least some modicum of respectability amongst our elected leaders. Sure, not much, but enough.
Second, do you really mean that? Do you really mean that Dick Armey making a slip of the tongue in front of a microphone is him speaking his conscience? Note that he didn't stand up and say "I think Barney Frank is a evil person and his actions disgust me and may God have mercy on his soul." THAT even I would have had at least SOME respect for.
But no. He himself bit his tongue until he finally came out with something that showed his true side. And THAT is truly awful.
If you're so thrilled to speak your conscience, why oh why are you posting anonymously?
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:1)
Re:Requiring Virgins... (Score:1)
The upshot? When your average high-school grad is told "Somebody said 2 plus 2 equals 5", she's less interested in analyzing the argument than in whether that "somebody" was John Rocker (in which case she'll probably disagree) or Bill Clinton (in which case she'll probably agree).
Truth denies personality; personality denies truth. Since the USA has decide to embrace The Lie, we have only personality left, and when we don't really know the personality, we have only the person's history, heritage (look how many people criticize, versus the tiny number who presumably applaud, George W. Bush for his ties to his father), and previous statements to look at -- not with the light of truth, but under the microscope of personality. (Remember, Starr once worked for "Big Tobacco", so he was Evil...pay no attention to what the Democrats asked him to do in the case of a certain famous "sexual harrasser" whose name was not Clinton.)
Re:You sir, are insane (Score:1)
Undergrads make things happen. Undergrads work for companies that let them have more "fiddle" time with equipment than professionals. Why? Because people with ideas like yours, think it "Oh, yeah let them look at that, keep 'em out of our hair" Of course I am probably wrong, that is why all the hot startups have 55 year old CEOs, right? Undergrads are simply more willing to ignore the system and go with their ethical values. But if you doubt that, read up on the geek ethos somewhere.
I am going back to my play doh
The "review" is inherently flawed anyway (Score:3)
Black Box A
for review, but using
Black Box B ("Carnovore 2.0") once they get so-called approval?
The shitty thing is that in a few years-- if not stopped now-- it'll all be taken for granted that Carnivore, the DMCA, etc. are ok.
-------------------
Moderating (Score:1)
I've sometimes come across a gem with a -1.
Sad bastards sometimes enlighten us more than confident bastards. Put in a nutshell, confidence and arrogance are inversely proportional, to ignorance and innocence.
Notice no sig. Nothing automatic here.
Reason for Carnivoure (?) (Score:2)
We're From the Government and We're here to Help (Beware Greeks Bearing Gifts) - Of course if the goal is limited to simply the execution of an e-mail-tap (?) then this is all you'd really need. No magic 'Carnivoure' boxes that can (but we promise it won't, trust us we're the governement) also see other traffic for which it has no warrant? The are no coincidences with regards to the Federal security apperatice. To assume incompetence & stupidity may be reassuring but to accept that assumption would be foolish at best.
The Camels Nose. - The goal is obviously to place a device into major ISP's networks. As someone else said, carnivore 1.0 get's approved but we end up with carvinoure 2.0 or better. 1.0 is the kinder gentler version while 2.0 would be the leather clad, chainsaw weilding, ass kicking version (from hell). Geez, there is really nothing magic about our freedoms. They are being eroded by venal, power hungery men - not "the government." Corrupt individuals. Hoover's extensive files on enemies is fairly well known. He used the agency as a personal tool of power. As long as we elect charismatic men of low character we'll continue to get what we deserve.
Control the Chokepoints - Even if all those involved with Carivoure and similiar systems would never abuse it, what is being created are the tools of a despot and we permit their existence at our own peril. Any group who willingly place collars about their necks should not be surprised to find a chain attached to it.
Todays Reading list:
The Puzzle Palace (inside the National Security Agency...)
-James Bamford
ISBN 0-14-006748-5
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:2)
Bush and Gore both owe their privileged status to oil money. Little Bush's saving moment came when Big George got him fat oil contracts, somehow getting him past big boys like Exxon and Mobil. No string pulling there.
The whole Gore family is owned by Standard Oil. They have been since before Al was even born.
I'm not pushing an agenda, I'm not trying to sway anyone's vote, I'm just worried and wondering. I have a question that I'd really like answered. If you see that as being against your view on drugs, the very fiber of the American family, etc. then you're being WAY too defensive and mising my point.
I'd like to know about the CIA ties. Our privacy is eroding moment to moment. Before we possibly put the White House in control of a CIA wonk, I'd like to know.
Ramesh Ponnuru on the thought of a Gore victory: "Imagine a Birkenstock on your face, forever".
haaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha... Who is Ramesh Ponnuru? That's going at the end of my emails for a while.
I think it's funny.... (Score:1)
In addition, Ms. Watney said the blacked-out information, including names, phone numbers, and security-clearance information, was not "sensitive law-enforcement information."
um, ok....
Security-clearance info and phone numbers are not sensitive info? I'd like to hear what is... Really, though, if they cant protect the privacy of their own (biased) review team, what are they going to do to the rest of the american people's privacy. Everyone needs to start using some 2048 bit encryption, see them try to crack that...
slashdot != Amerikan Society (Score:1)
Whatever. Pick up a newspaper, watch the 6 o'clock nightly report. Ask the grocery-store cashier what she thinks of Carnivore.
Carnivore what?
Why should i care about the obliteration of my most sacred freedoms when there are stories discussing high gas prices? and isn't Madonna Roberts Midler Winfrey coming out with a new movieshowbookmediaitem? Goddammit, I Want My MTV!
When confirmation of Echelon burst out all over the Net, print media buried it in two-column back page articles that nobody noticed.
"will the real representative sample please stand up?"
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties
Re:Requiring Virgins... (Score:2)
Ask yourself this question. Do I believe in pluto? Do you? why?
Have ever seen it, seen a picture of it, a video of it, have you ever talked to anybody who has seen it, have you touched it?
Chances are you believe it cos you were told by somebody that it's true and or you read it in a book. Pretty damned flimsy evidence don't you think?
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
Re:Why worry? (Score:1)
Why do you think the USA has munition export restrictions on encryption anyway? So the U.S government agencies always have a leg up on em, not because other countries can't use the encryption, but because its less likely those other countries will figure out how to crack it.
Kinda puts the whole "reverse-engineering" and "encryption circumvention" mentioned in the DMCA a little more meaning, eh?
When dealing with the government, what you see is never what you get.
Re:Interesting indeed... (Score:2)
Personally, I think that it's great to see the Republicans getting interested in this. For quite a while they've been much more inclined to take a pro-police power stance as part of a tough on crime platform, while Democrats have generally taken more of a civil liberties attitude. If the Republicans are starting to see internet monitoring as a problem, the chances are very good that it's going to get canned, since both major parties are going to be against it.
Re:no conspiracy theories necessary... (Score:2)
Re:Reason for Carnivoure (?) (Score:2)
And herein lies one of the fundamental objections to Carnivore. It's not about maintaining the government's power to conduct surveillance -- it's about giving the government the power to conduct surveillance without bringing an outsider into the loop. The fact that they feel the need to eliminate any risk of ISP whistle-blowing raises a big red flag.
/.
Uh huh... (Score:2)
Of course, the quick'n easy fix if you don't trust carnivore would be to encrypt all your stuff before you send it. Which you really should be doing anyway. If you don't even want them to see who you're talking to, encrypt it to the recipient, add a remailer block, encrypt that to your favorite remailer, repeat as many times as you feel necessary and then send. I've taken to using VM from EMACS because it makes this sort of thing trivial. Hopefully Evolution will have similiar features for those people who don't like using their text editor to send mail.
funny, coming from a republican... (Score:2)
'It's a a bad idea to have people with clear political ties reviewing a system under political scrutiny,'
Let's see.... G.W. Bush has a total of 5 years of political experience... He's been nominated mainly because of his ties to his dad... His dad was the head of the CIA for many years.... Somehow enough strings were pulled to get someone with 5 years of political experience nominated for president... Who could pull those strings?
Why isn't ANYONE talking about G.W.'s CIA ties?
Re:Requiring Virgins... (Score:1)
Agreed, and you make excellent points. I was thinking more of the conceptual framework of the law, which, in the USA, is pretty much in tatters; seems like it's all ad-hoc now. (Not that it was ever tremendously solid, being interpreted by humans and all, plus it was often "augmented" by stupidities like racism, sexism, etc.)
Indeed, I'm eternally grateful to my sixth-grade teacher (Mr. Fisher) for asking us this very question (about France, actually) to get us to think more deeply.
IMO, it's an issue pretty reasonably handled via the use of the conditional, as in "If what 99% of the population accepts as true holds, then Pluto exists, in which case the debate over whether it is a planet has value vis-a-vis that population".
If you look at my public dribblings, you'll notice I make occasional use of this -- stating absolutes not so much, leveraging statements of fact or opinion off of what the other person, people, or agency has said more often.
It's not a complete defense, but since the same question about Pluto can be asked about language, survival, even existence, there probably is no complete defense.
So, the end game may well be complete chaos or randomness, but I still claim we can choose to create a society in which societal systems (like government, justice systems, computer systems) are themselves more, or perhaps less, predictable, reasonable, understandable, from the perspective of the typical member of that society.
And, lately, we've chosen to go in the direction of lower predictability.
This has serious ramifications: the less the typical member of society thinks they understand what's going on, the less they are willing to participate in participating in its ongoing construction in a coherent manner.
The result is a combination of long-term ruling by an increasingly tiny elite and a series of incoherent "rulings" by the populace, typically in the form of violent protest.
We could do better if we wanted, but most "thinkers" in the legal/political game favor the idea of a ruling elite over that of a simpler, more widely understood system, it seems. (Though I'd hazard a guess they aren't individually conscious of it; our "accepted theories" so generally fortify the elite-rule-is-good concept to the extent they call into question the wisdom of any society that overthrew a deity-appointed or heredity-based royalty! I Sam 8:6-9 contains the Judeo-Christian God's response to the people asking Him to appoint a King -- and thereby the first J-C government in any modern sense -- for them, and it's made me question, and reject, many of my own previously cherished beliefs about government.)
Kinda like how programmers, left to their own devices and "wisdom", construct systems that are needlessly complex and seemingly more about ensuring job security (or one's sense of one's own mastery), rather than honoring the KISS principle and delivering something that actually works without further tweaking.
Politics as usual (Score:1)
I can't help but wonder why someone like Dick Armey would really care about whether Carnivore gets an unbiased review.
I suspect that, as usual, this has more to do with meaningless, mindless partisan politics than with actual issues.
Wind
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:1)
I thought Gore's patron was Occidental Petroleum? Run by the famously amoral Armand Hammer? (Did deals with Libya and other fun people...)
Hmm, interesting wording (Score:1)
Independent of all politics??? (Score:1)
Representative Armey, of course, has no political ties.
Get real. Above a certain level, everyone has political ties, even if it's only departmental politics.
The big question is the integrity of the reviewers and the review process. So far, there has been nothing I've seen to give me confidence in the simple scientific integrity of the review process. Political ties are a red herring. The big question is whether this is truly an independent review.
My sources say No.
What? Biased revewers??!?!? (Score:2)
No, it isn't. It's a bad idea to have people with the *wrong* political ties reviewing it. Let the people with the privacy and hacker political ties at it, if you want a real answer.
Heck, Congress, if you want a real review, then *make* the FBI give one over for a real, public review. Let the opencarnivore team have at it. Give me one to rip open. We'll tell you what it does.
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:1)
Yeah, he was in the CIA, but somehow the whole Iran-Contra thing made it past him...
Re:Interesting indeed... (Score:1)
Insanity if the only way (Score:3)
The problem is that a true comprehensive review is impossible without access to the inner workings of the box. Nobody who will fully disclose to the public the risks of Carnivore is ever going to be given access to those inner workings. (The government clearly either has something to hide, or they are relying on security through obscurity.) Anyone who can be trusted, isn't going to agree to the terms. If MIT or Berkeley were to agree to the terms necessary to get access to the inner workings, then those institutions wouldn't have the reputations that they currently have.
So, at best, the only analysis that will ever come from a trustworthy party will be one that can only study the box from the outside (or one that can crack it to reveal its secrets).
I don't think MIT and Berkeley are going to be too interested in studying a black box from the outside, and they are especially not going to want to put their reputations on the line and say that it's safe, just because they don't find anything. (Why? Because they won't know for sure.) Hackers may be the ones who are willing to do the only job that can be done.
---
This is such BS (Score:2)
Anyone falling for this? Here's a hint. The political affiliation of your boss does not determine your status as biased or unbiased. This guy may have loved both the Democratic and Republican bosses he had and think extra Governmental control is necessary. Or he may have memories of "Man, having this info would have made my job so much easier back when I worked for the Justice Dept." Both of these possiblities are biased and both are bi-partisan.
Steven
Breach of security even before Carnivore! (Score:3)
That's just too funny and too scary at the same time. If I ever witness a crime, they can count me out of the Federal Witness Protection Program; I'm moving to Tahiti!
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:1)
'It's a a bad idea to have people with clear political ties reviewing a system under political scrutiny,'
Let's see.... G.W. Bush has a total of 5 years of political experience... He's been nominated mainly because of his ties to his dad... His dad was the head of the CIA for many years.... Somehow enough strings were pulled to get someone with 5 years of political experience nominated for president... Who could pull those strings?
Why isn't ANYONE talking about G.W.'s CIA ties?
Hmmm
Re:no conspiracy theories necessary... (Score:1)
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
Re:Scapegoating? (Score:2)
"But Ms. Watney blamed the oversight on "administrative staff" at the research institute, saying they had provided the file to the Justice Department with the names already redacted, and that the department had merely posted the information online."
The Small Things In Life (Score:1)
Don't you just enjoy hearing "Dick Armey is on the warpath"?
armey... warpath... get it?
No, it's Deja Vu (Score:3)
Diamond: Whatever shall we do, oh wise one?
Armey: What we do everytime we don't want blood on our own hands.
Diamond: You can't mean... no... it's too horrible!
Armey: We have little choice in this matter. Summon the Independent Counsel!
Gooonnnnnngggggg!
Starr: You rang?
Armey: We require your services, most illustrious independent minded and ever so fair one!
Starr: No problem, I'll find Clinton guilty for only $26,000,000 this time.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
Re:You sir, are insane (Score:1)
Just because some students may not come from a high profile university does not mean they are without any moral fiber. Your blackhat crowd is consistantly composed of younger foes or highschool children. I myself attended a very humble and very inexpensive school and yet to date I have never compromised another computer in an illegal fashion. I have always held myself as one of the good guys. I've used the tools and the methods but it was either in an environment where this was the goal or for work when gaging the security of a recently purchased company.
Do you really want those Berkley devil worshipping bastards to get their hands ahold of this stuff?
THAT person was a DOJ spokeswoman? so clueless (Score:1)
Re:This is a political complaint, not a REAL compl (Score:3)
I think the whole point of what Armey's saying is addressing all your things he didn't explicitly mention, except one. And that is that the premise of Carnivore is a violation of civil liberties just by existing. On that point, he's hearing one story from the Clinton Administration, and another from the rest of the world. The whole point of an independent review is to sort out exactly what carnivore does and how it does it.
I mean, talk about nit picky. When /. went up in arms about it, Congress demanded a review of Carnivore. Then, we got mad when we found out that everyone who would review it was working for the president whose people built it-- and Congress is mad about that, too. Trying to jump in the Majority Leader's head and find a reason why this isn't good news is really reaching. We complain that noone is doing the right thing on these issues, then when someone does, we fish around for reasons to still be mad at them. Sheesh!
We should be overjoyed that people are fighting for what we believe in, instead of just saying that they are hip to the internet and then trying to shove the clipper chip down our throats. (or national ID's or stopping fair use, or holding up encryption export, et al.)
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:1)
Like Al Gore would be the Democrats candidate if it wasn't for his Senator daddies' TOBACCO FORTUNE.
Bush was nominated because he's managed to get large numbers of independents and Democrats to vote for him and work with him in addition to the Republican base. He even won reelection as Governor of Texas, which (if I recall last night's Frontline program on the candidates correctly) was the first time anyone's done that? People say they're sick of partisan politics, therefore the Republican establishment wing picked Bush, and the rest of the party was too fragmented to challenge him (and Forbes still hasn't learned how to campaign, alas).
Ramesh Ponnuru on the thought of a Gore victory: "Imagine a Birkenstock on your face, forever".
Huge (Score:1)
Not only late (Score:1)
IIT's carnivore review? A sham?! (Score:1)
Well, Duh... (Score:4)
You know what we need to do? Get a team of students. Not even graduates, undergrads. A pair of EE majors, and a half-dozen CS majors. Give them the device. Come back a month later, they'll be able to tell you what it does, how it does it, and how you can use it to screw iwth other people's stuff.
It's all a sham (Score:1)
*gasp* (Score:1)
Webmaster, http://www.thecitadel.net
Re:You sir, are insane (Score:1)
Steven
Re:no conspiracy theories necessary... (Score:1)
This attitude has always pissed me off. The only such thing as a "wasted vote" is when the voter stays at home instead of voting. The only good reason to vote for someone is if you are honestly and truly behind that person for the presidency. There is no "anyone but this candidate" option on the ballot; there is no way to vote against someone. You vote FOR a candidate. Not wanting Bush to win is a terrible reason for voting for Gore. The two major political parties don't mind that though, since such attitudes keep them in power. If you want real change and real improvement, vote for someone who really represents your beliefs. Otherwise you are only perpetuating the status quo.
Darned faceless burocrats (Score:1)
Some unnamed staff employee is always screwing things up for top officials. Fire someone from the secretarial pool, that usually satisfies the public.
It's like this King who kept several heads of cabbage on his privy counsel, so that whenever one of the King's projects conspiciously miscarriages, he could assuage [bartleby.com] his subjects by revealing that several members of the royal counsel have just been beheaded.
Only to be expected. (Score:1)
I think that anyone even interested in reviewing it would have to be biased one way or the other. And of course it's no surprise which side the FBI decided to go with.
Who's watching the watcher? (Score:2)
Let me get this straight, Armey is biased against people who worked for politicians/government, accusing them being untrustworthy. Sounds like a strong endorsement to me. Oh, wait, it's election year, silly me.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
This is a political complaint, not a REAL complain (Score:4)
Let's consider some of the things he did say:
- Members of the team have political ties.
- Names weren't removed correctly.
That's all well and good, but let's look at the laundry list of problems he didn't mention:- The premise of Carnivore is a violation of civil liberties just by its existance.
- Most of the people involved aren't engineers, they're politicos (just academic politicos).
- Allowing the authors to choose the reviewers AT ALL won't ever work if you want unbiased reviews.
- Keeping the process secret simply encourages people to come up with conspiracy theories which will never EVER be dispelled.
- That just doing things like winnowing and chafing will remove any ability for Carnivore to do its job.
Ordinarily, I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. But considering some of the things that Dick Armey's mouth has spouted (the Barney Frank incident comes to mind immediately), I'm not willing to take this as a victory.We want to win this by fighting on the right issues, not turning it into a political football. The moment it becomes a purely partisan battle, the larger issue is ignored and lost to all of us.
IIT Blows (Score:1)
Like I said... (Score:2)
But it is nice to see the House looking after our constitutional protections for a change (as opposed to their usual habits).
--
Listen Up! (Score:3)
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:1)
One issue in 1992 listed 1001 reasons to not vote for George Sr. One of the ones that struck me was:
How nervous would the US be if the head of the KGB were elected president of Russia?
That comment then went on to Bush's involvement in the CIA.
Re:no conspiracy theories necessary... (Score:2)
Well, that's what their line is. I'm not buying it for a second.
I'm not calming down anytime soon, either, we had 8 years of the Reagan puppet, then 4 years of Bush himself running things the CIA way, now we're looking forward to possibly another 4 years of puppetship...
Bottom Line: (Score:2)
And Carnivore still would have been created under a Republican DOJ, bet on it. The FBI's internal culture is authoritarian, has been since the beginning, through democrat and republican administrations alike.
-Isaac
Armey's hidden agenda (Score:4)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who is even casually familiar with American politics. Once these people get into power, their chief objective becomes remaining in power. It stands to reason then, that they would never have a truly independent person or commission oversee anything as politically sensitive as Carnivore. They want people doing this who will "play ball" and who are already part of the system.
The surprising thing is not that the "partisian" word is being thrown around, it's that it has taken so long to come up. Come to think of it, it's a common political tactic to take a controversial subject, and hide the real issues behind supposedly indignant cries of "partisianship" and "political dirty tricks". If you need an example, look no further than the failure of congress to pass any kind of campaign finance reform.
And one last thing: I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of people in congress don't even understand how to install Windows and connect to the Internet, much less comprehend exactly what Carnivore does...frightening, isn't it? People who have so much effect on our lives and freedoms don't grok most of the things that are so important to us, but that won't stop them from making laws anyway.
America goverment is insane (Score:2)
If you have a two bucks, you might want to place a dollar on each one.
Remember, this is a goverment that been tapping phone systems since the 60's. I'm pretty sure it's not just email they want. Most likley it's going to sniff all traffic, crack what it can, send to the lap what it can't do localy, and look for keywords in all text. Along with this, record the traffic from all machine, track useage and users, and profile everybody.
The Goverment want to know everything going on the internet, just like they know everything thing is the water, every plane in the sky, every voice being spoken, every object in orbit around the Earth. This goverment want to know it all.
Ok, maybe they just want to know email. Well sometimes, the only way to be able to track "emails" is to be able to get everything from $b from $c to $d to $h from $x going to $y coming from $v. Once they are able to do that, they crack the simple 128 bit cypto, enter a little password, crack a system, and find out what Billy and his Child Porn Super Store has or what plans is at Mark's Super Bomb Depot, first hand. How ever most likly, they crack into a freedom fighter camp in some third world country, find thier record, bomb thier base to hell and back, send in the army, we lose a few men, but who care it's not our sons. We place a goverment in control they delieve us millions of gallons of oil and we're all happy as hell in the us, thanks to out wonderful goverment taking care of our trist for oil. And we all sing "it's for the childern" and proudly standup saying "we can kick the world's ass!"
Ok, maybe that's a little far off. maybe they only was to kindly "remove' that damaging report about someone high up in goverment raping some girl and her brother dieing the same week in "a car crash". Or that grass root group that discover gross secerts about the goverment. Of course it could be use to remove the unnice web site showing how to hack some corp product.
The "tracking email" part is just a cover. There is no end on what a system like this can do. Simple being there is enough to raise questions, screw that. It's enough to panic.
How many people bitch and cry about a kiddie port scanning thier network? How about packet sniffing? How many hours after hours does a sysadmin secure his network? How many patches are appiled to secure a system? How many NSA keys are in software? Do you guys really trust a goverment with this much power of your lives? I don't. This goverment is after one thing now, control over the people. Moden day inslavement.
I don't know about you, I more worried about the goverment cracking my system then MrBadA$$ Cracker. Heck, MrBadA$$ just have to offer me some shells or mp3's and I'll let him have access to my collection of files.
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:2)
Um, not to defend G.W. or Republicans, but he was nominated mainly because he won a bunch of primaries.
Are you trying to say that the CIA pulled strings with all those voters?
I hope not, but... (Score:1)
Re:Does the name Echelon sound familiar? (Score:1)
Perhaps you could post a link? Or were you just trolling?
Re:You sir, are insane (Score:5)
Uh, dude, just what do you think Carnivore IS? It's basically a glorified packet sniffer. There are tools already out there that do everything it does and more that the kiddies play with on a daily basis. The sticky point is that the kiddies and crackers have to try to sneak access undetected while the government can force ISPs to install it on their systems. The review isn't about the technical side of how it works - it's about what controls and limits (or lack thereof) are built into it. How do we know that they're only looking at Joe Crack-dealer's email and not at Wally Politically-incorrect's email as well?
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:1)
Re:Dick Armey (Score:2)
Remember Orin Hatch's hearings on Napster and the DMCA? Hatch said that the way they designed the bill, it was designed to be fully fair-use compliant. But that the court rulings and the interpretations the RIAA and MPAA are using are way skewed away from what the bill was intended to do.
That is what happens, sometimes. You write something intended to do one thing, and then it does something else. How many patches make a large software system stable? Same deal.
They were worried about protecting the rights of authors against bootlegging; but the bill is now being applied in ways which it was never intended to work (user licences, DeCSS, etc).
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:1)
Why is the lid down???????????????
Re:*gasp* (Score:1)
-
Re:No, it's Deja Vu (Score:1)
Amusing, but the Independant Counsel law was not renewed by Congress. The Attorney General appoints someone to investigate things now (I think that they are called Special Prosecutors, but I don't recall clearly.)
Of course, this is the same AG that doesn't see any reason to appoint one to look into Gore's fund raising efforts (even though all her underlings think she should), and since the current Adminstration likes Carnivore, I don't see it happening here either...
NecroPuppy
---
Godot called. He said he'd be late.
You said it! (Score:1)
I'd like to see that.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:2)
is it really a debate if they're both lying through their teeth?
Re:Breach of security even before Carnivore! (Score:2)
Jeez... To Think We Slashdotters Were Right On... (Score:1)
Maybe Slashdot should be required reading for every rep and senator in DC!
I was going to go on a one-man picket in front of IIT, but this is better!
Re:Time to take advantage of our political system! (Score:1)
Because authority teaches them to live that way. That is why nations have flags, and monuments, anthems, pledges of allegiance, etc. Convince people that they are part of a group, and that the group has leaders. Next, convince them that questioning leaders is wrong via religion and state-sponsored education.
After that, greet those who attempt to make their views known with destructive criticism and violence. When they protest organizations and political parites, beat them, jail them, etc.
People want to speak up, but they are afraid to. Just like a gay man might be afraid to come out of the closet, dissidents are afraid as well.
Scapegoating? (Score:1)
Unusual problem (Score:1)
Gov't Criticizing Gov't?? (Score:1)
Interesting indeed... (Score:2)
Re:Well, Duh... (Score:2)
Ok, you are the US government and you are going to have someone review some software you may implement. You want them to be dependable and confidential. You will therefore pick (a) a group of security cleared individuals who have shown you good work before (b) a group of nobodies with a strong problem with authority. Gee, if I were the FBI who would I pick? If they gave it to you, you would either (a) rip it apart and publish all hacker utils on the net (b) insert code to create whopping great loophole and publish how to do exploit that on the net (c) blackmail them by threatening to make the code public so they most likely couldn't use it at all.
I am not saying Carnivore is the way to go about doing what it does. In fact it seems damned inefficient to effectively read everybodies mail in order to read one persons. However in the end the government has far less power than one of your ISPs sysadmins. Should there be a better program? Yes. Is this the way to test what they have? Yes.
Hmm (Score:3)
Me: Why are people with classified clearance on the review group?
DOJ: We thought that information was secret!
Me: You didn't answer my question.
DOJ: What question?
We aren't that stupid. Give me a break.
wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:so who here (Score:2)
And besides, if you use e-mail the FBI will read it and add your name to their list of known subversives.
--
Re:Does the name Echelon sound familiar? (Score:2)
--
Re:funny, coming from a republican... (Score:2)
At least he isn't claiming he invented it.
-- Greg
Re:You sir, are insane (Score:2)
Steven
Re:no conspiracy theories necessary... (Score:2)
Rampant drug use- ya, sure, and the Reaganites weren't all coked up in the 80's. I'll take Clinton pot smokers over Reagan cokeheads ANY day. Plus, what's been proven?
Nat'l Security- that definitely needs improvement, no doubt. Gore will get on it next year. However, I submit that regardless of the president, it would have happened anyway. With the explosion of the 'information age', it would have been a miracle for any administration to totally secure our 'secrets'.
Corruption of liberal media- what are you talking about? The media has always been largely liberal (I believe because they actually see life how it is, and not as conservatives imagine). What corruption? They've done a fine job taking the pols to task...
Scandal after Scandal- will not ever stop. Everyone has a scandal or two; just til now, we didn't have the means to compile a persons entire history in a few days. Clinton made a lot of dumb moves- I don't respect him as a person. But as a president, I have little to complain about (overall
Sexual harrasement- goes to the above. He's an idiot. His wife probably whips him on a whim. Whatever, he's still doing a fine job.
Military readiness- needs to be kept up, but doesn't need drastic improvement, from what I've read. Build a few more ships, couple hundred tanks, few hundred planes- and KEEP investing in tech, as we've been doing- and we're good. There's NO need to return to the mindless spending (to the domestic detriment, though the 'victory' of the cold war) of the Reagan era.
We've done fine, from what I know, in our past conflicts. We need to buy/build some new things, but Bush and his hawks are way out there.
I agree- please don't waste votes on Nader. He's not gonna win, and if Bush does...we got trouble. Gore may not be the most honorable man, but hell of a lot moreso than Bush. At least he owns up to his past drug-use. And anyone who is actually aware, realizes Gore never said he 'invented the internet' and as was posted here previously, has been absolved of his mistaken comment.
Plus, with Gore, we're assured a longer lasting environment than Bush would ever uphold- "cleaned up texas'? Surely you can't imply environmentally!
Interesting, xtermz, that you realize 'take a chance with Bush or suffer 8 more years of clintonism'- cause while I'd like to agree that Gore will do two terms, IMO, the market is gonna crash hard in two years (at most) and Gore's never gonna be forgiven for it.
You republicans had best start finding a TRULY responsible and honorable person for 2005!
Re:Time to take advantage of our political system! (Score:2)
You know this is getting offtopic, but something really bothered me today. There were people all over my campus, hundreds of people, holding up signs, all day. What were they protesting? Nothing.
They were advertising their candidate for Homecoming Queen and King.
Why do people choose to live with their head in the sand? Why waste your time on stupid shit like that, when you could be trying to change things for the better. I could just imagine that many people holding up signs calling for a debate on the Drug War, or that many people holding up signs protesting the ludicrous state of Intellectual Property.
-
so who here (Score:2)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
Does the name Echelon sound familiar? (Score:2)
The unescapable conclusion that we all must jump to is they are trying to hide something. Why not just have the box pass already established DoD security measures, and have the "Carnivore" application open for peer or government contract review? Because they do not want anyone to know that these things are actually part of the escelon snooping network.
This is a ploy to desguise whole scale privacy violoations to the highest bidders, under the guise of ligitimate govenment wiretapping.
even if it is not today, what happens when the rubber stam goes on this beast and they start to change the source code? Tell me the FBI is without corruption and who would be able to question thier athority?
Dick Armey (Score:2)
___________________________