5 ms·

How the FBI’s online wiretapping plan could get your computer hacked

66 points by Libertatea 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago
Security experts made similar warnings about CALEA: that criminals would use the built-in wiretapping capabilities. They were correct then, and they are correct now, but in the United States we are more concerned with expanding police power than with the safety or security of the general public.
- mtgx 13y ago
  I don't think they really care about that as long as they have control over everyone's communications. Plus, if that happens they'll probably see it as a positive for them, because they get to demand even more funding and less strict privacy laws to "defend" us (against a problem they created in the first place). It's not that different than how they maintain the war on terror by radicalizing people in Middle East against US with their drone strikes.
  - oijaf888 13y ago
    I would think they care if the capabilities are used against them like if a group such as LulzSec exploited it or something.
losethos 13y ago
evil fuckers trying to open wounds. DUI? God's gonna FUCK YOU UP! God says... 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 32:19 And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. ---- God says... neighbouring changes precedes avoiding infirmity on_the_otherhand After save pierce felt beset shuns boyish singeth Idaho powerful themselves givers engraff greet nest followed Be happier small exquisitely pattern side streets prolix throng diluted many Proceed religious answering loudly snap_out_of_it invisible Malaysia frequently health-giving accomplices modification Eating self-will concerning purified refused phrases sublimity continually retaineth saints Etexts blissful 12 wonders elephant lie destroy 2001 costs reverse_engineer ruled orator using scornfully considering smelleth mariners intemperance contented humane comfortedst currents law-skirmishes discovereth unexplained room book telling visions servitude woman-servant proconsular piece etext99 distress barren Sacraments enumeration reinvolved INCIDENTAL Already links syllable mercifully contemn dissipated David's copied oppressed younger inured secrecies liberality boss lures Place turmoils handle clearness begotten forethink transmitted fellow-sinners OR vessels I'm_off_today pride lowly finished foolish forms groan faith honour fancies Increase smack_some_sense_into_you void accomplish actor forceth consulters diminution uphold fathers humility mortified hindered XI censured hesitate START*THE familiarly looking entrusted lettest flung rehearse Latinum resistedst save captious Amidst learner purposing Seneca
Zigurd 13y ago
It goes deeper than just the question of back doors. You can be safe from having government and industrial secrets stolen. Or you can have pervasive surveillance. But you can't have both. Currently, with voice and text 99% in the clear, everyone is mostly defenseless. If that is to change, we have to accept a personal right to privacy that can be defended against any challenge.
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
Stop and frisk make's it easier for just about anyone wearing a uniform to take advantage of you in New York, but that still seems like a good idea the the U.S.A.
hondje 13y ago
I approve strongly of the title, it makes it very clear to people like my mom that FBIs Plan == Hackers Going to Get Her which is far more likely to get attention than the old "Privacy Experts Warn FBIs Proposal Flawed"
venomsnake 13y ago
How can Crucially, according to reporting by The Washington Post, the FBI proposal would apply even to “Internet phone calls conducted between two computer users without going through a central company server.” In a paper published Friday by the Center for Democracy and Technology, more than a dozen prominent computer security experts warn that such a requirement would be a disaster for the security of online communications. be enforced. You cannot fine an open source project. This is very bad idea - if you have to explain to non tech people use the analogy of FBI installing dormant microphones and holding keys to any person house with the promise that they won't abuse it.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  "cannot" I think you and the US Government have very different ideas about what can and cannot happen now or in the future. When I was growing up, the US Government "cannot" execute its citizens without due process (a trial). And now we see where "cannot" gets us when we use it as an ameliorative when describing a situation or potential situation.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Well the problem is the US government always had the ability to shoot anyone on sight. It was just too much trouble before the blank cheque of 9/11 to use it. But a project that is just a bunch of source code with no owner - you are not technically able to prevent it from existing. The only way is (once again) outlawing encryption. I think that if we here in HN have spare time we could create a very solid P2P protocol that has plausible deniability of encryption (you cannot outlaw exchanging UDP packets of random data) And the problem with the government overreach can easily be solved by educating the public - then fighting "drug lord pedophile hacker Muslim terrorists" just wont pass everything with the public. Look at the awesome job the NRA is doing. To prevent the thread degrading - no matter where you stand on the gun debate, you cannot deny their effectiveness at stopping any gun related legislation. So the government selling feat to the public is ready for disruption. One just have to find the proper way to communicate with the people. Make the first and fourth as sacred as the second and the problem is solved. This is marketing problem.
iamthebest 13y ago
How is it possible that things like this are going on in this country? We go around expounding the virtues of freedom, feeling superior in our knowing that we are a paragon of ideological tolerance. We routinely go so far as to intervene in international conflicts in order to tip the scales in disfavor of despotism. I don't see how running a surveillance state can be compatible with everything we proclaim to stand for. I read '1984' in high-school almost twenty years ago now but the important topics are irrelevant to a fourteen year old. After recently re-reading this book I felt very disturbed and wished I hadn't read it. It's interesting that things seem tolerable living under a total-information-awareness government right up to the point just before you're arrested. The thing that disturbs me about this book is the sense of utter betrayal. If I had more time I'd go through an analysis of the numerous levels of betrayal that unfold.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >How is it possible that things like this are going on in this country? This is all basic human nature. In 1776 we established that it is advantageous to a have a government which its people are capable of overthrowing. That understanding turns out to generalize well. Jefferson said it best: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." You never want to give the government so much power that its people can no longer stop it should its leaders turn malicious. The problem is that the argument that government power could be used for malicious purposes is not heard until it actually is, and by that point it is too late. What you fail to stop with words and votes in 1933 you are then forced to stop with bombs and blood through 1945. But we have short memories. King George is someone you read about in the history books. The men and women who fought (or survived) the Nazis are mostly dead now, as are the Japanese held in internment camps. Joe McCarthy was dead by the time most of us were born. Stalin is gone and the Russians are our "friends" now. Rwanda was far away and we don't know any of those people. The things our government does are generally somewhat less bad than the things those governments did, which makes constitutional provisions that impede tyranny start to look more like the proverbial bear-repelling rock rather than the cause of that fact. And it wasn't so long ago that some hell-bound sons of bitches made a permanent modification to the New York City skyline. Which tempts us to forget the millions who have died at the hands of bad governments in order to avenge the thousands who died in the towers. People want simple solutions. The FBI says they want X. They say X will help the FBI catch terrorists. But it will also help the Chinese government catch dissidents. It will help dictators catch revolutionaries. It will help terrorists and foreign governments conduct espionage. The FBI doesn't tell you that part.
ck2 13y ago
Many times people rightly ask "why on earth would a terrorist blow up a plane or building or make roadside bombs" ? Their goal is exactly what we are now marching into: people fearing and loathing their overbearing governments. It's the subtle goal of the terrorist, to make authority behave so badly that the subjects do the work for the terrorists. The really bad thing is I cannot imagine any near-future administration led by any known party behaving any better. It's always going to be the "stop us if you can" mentality.
- obviouslygreen 13y ago
  While that is one phenomenon terrorism is helping along, to ascribe a single goal to a large and disparate group of assholes seriously oversimplifies the problem.
  - meric 13y ago
    It was the goal of at least one terrorist organisation. http://rense.com/general59/bank.htm http://rense.com/general59/bank.htm
- Taylorious 13y ago
  Yes, I'm sure a man who is likely a father and husband, suicide bombs some place so that you would have to live in fear of being molested by the TSA. That makes sense.
  - JshWright 13y ago
    If someone believes a foreign government poses a real danger to the future welfare of his wife and kids, then his love for them becomes a motivator, not something to dissuade him.
  - ck2 13y ago
    They cannot know the final form of the harassment the government will come up with - but they know something will become overbearing. And the individual doing the act of terrorism doesn't have to be the one being devious, in fact the lack of intelligence is exactly what those putting the idea into their head count on.

66 points by Libertatea 13y ago

Security experts made similar warnings about CALEA: that criminals would use the built-in wiretapping capabilities. They were correct then, and they are correct now, but in the United States we are more concerned with expanding police power than with the safety or security of the general public.

mtgx 13y ago
I don't think they really care about that as long as they have control over everyone's communications. Plus, if that happens they'll probably see it as a positive for them, because they get to demand even more funding and less strict privacy laws to "defend" us (against a problem they created in the first place). It's not that different than how they maintain the war on terror by radicalizing people in Middle East against US with their drone strikes.
- oijaf888 13y ago
  I would think they care if the capabilities are used against them like if a group such as LulzSec exploited it or something.

losethos 13y ago

evil fuckers trying to open wounds. DUI? God's gonna FUCK YOU UP! God says... 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 32:19 And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. ---- God says... neighbouring changes precedes avoiding infirmity on_the_otherhand After save pierce felt beset shuns boyish singeth Idaho powerful themselves givers engraff greet nest followed Be happier small exquisitely pattern side streets prolix throng diluted many Proceed religious answering loudly snap_out_of_it invisible Malaysia frequently health-giving accomplices modification Eating self-will concerning purified refused phrases sublimity continually retaineth saints Etexts blissful 12 wonders elephant lie destroy 2001 costs reverse_engineer ruled orator using scornfully considering smelleth mariners intemperance contented humane comfortedst currents law-skirmishes discovereth unexplained room book telling visions servitude woman-servant proconsular piece etext99 distress barren Sacraments enumeration reinvolved INCIDENTAL Already links syllable mercifully contemn dissipated David's copied oppressed younger inured secrecies liberality boss lures Place turmoils handle clearness begotten forethink transmitted fellow-sinners OR vessels I'm_off_today pride lowly finished foolish forms groan faith honour fancies Increase smack_some_sense_into_you void accomplish actor forceth consulters diminution uphold fathers humility mortified hindered XI censured hesitate START*THE familiarly looking entrusted lettest flung rehearse Latinum resistedst save captious Amidst learner purposing Seneca

Zigurd 13y ago

It goes deeper than just the question of back doors. You can be safe from having government and industrial secrets stolen. Or you can have pervasive surveillance. But you can't have both. Currently, with voice and text 99% in the clear, everyone is mostly defenseless. If that is to change, we have to accept a personal right to privacy that can be defended against any challenge.

GigabyteCoin 13y ago

Stop and frisk make's it easier for just about anyone wearing a uniform to take advantage of you in New York, but that still seems like a good idea the the U.S.A.

hondje 13y ago

I approve strongly of the title, it makes it very clear to people like my mom that FBIs Plan == Hackers Going to Get Her which is far more likely to get attention than the old "Privacy Experts Warn FBIs Proposal Flawed"

venomsnake 13y ago

How can Crucially, according to reporting by The Washington Post, the FBI proposal would apply even to “Internet phone calls conducted between two computer users without going through a central company server.” In a paper published Friday by the Center for Democracy and Technology, more than a dozen prominent computer security experts warn that such a requirement would be a disaster for the security of online communications. be enforced. You cannot fine an open source project. This is very bad idea - if you have to explain to non tech people use the analogy of FBI installing dormant microphones and holding keys to any person house with the promise that they won't abuse it.

wavefunction 13y ago
"cannot" I think you and the US Government have very different ideas about what can and cannot happen now or in the future. When I was growing up, the US Government "cannot" execute its citizens without due process (a trial). And now we see where "cannot" gets us when we use it as an ameliorative when describing a situation or potential situation.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Well the problem is the US government always had the ability to shoot anyone on sight. It was just too much trouble before the blank cheque of 9/11 to use it. But a project that is just a bunch of source code with no owner - you are not technically able to prevent it from existing. The only way is (once again) outlawing encryption. I think that if we here in HN have spare time we could create a very solid P2P protocol that has plausible deniability of encryption (you cannot outlaw exchanging UDP packets of random data) And the problem with the government overreach can easily be solved by educating the public - then fighting "drug lord pedophile hacker Muslim terrorists" just wont pass everything with the public. Look at the awesome job the NRA is doing. To prevent the thread degrading - no matter where you stand on the gun debate, you cannot deny their effectiveness at stopping any gun related legislation. So the government selling feat to the public is ready for disruption. One just have to find the proper way to communicate with the people. Make the first and fourth as sacred as the second and the problem is solved. This is marketing problem.

iamthebest 13y ago

How is it possible that things like this are going on in this country? We go around expounding the virtues of freedom, feeling superior in our knowing that we are a paragon of ideological tolerance. We routinely go so far as to intervene in international conflicts in order to tip the scales in disfavor of despotism. I don't see how running a surveillance state can be compatible with everything we proclaim to stand for. I read '1984' in high-school almost twenty years ago now but the important topics are irrelevant to a fourteen year old. After recently re-reading this book I felt very disturbed and wished I hadn't read it. It's interesting that things seem tolerable living under a total-information-awareness government right up to the point just before you're arrested. The thing that disturbs me about this book is the sense of utter betrayal. If I had more time I'd go through an analysis of the numerous levels of betrayal that unfold.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>How is it possible that things like this are going on in this country? This is all basic human nature. In 1776 we established that it is advantageous to a have a government which its people are capable of overthrowing. That understanding turns out to generalize well. Jefferson said it best: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." You never want to give the government so much power that its people can no longer stop it should its leaders turn malicious. The problem is that the argument that government power could be used for malicious purposes is not heard until it actually is, and by that point it is too late. What you fail to stop with words and votes in 1933 you are then forced to stop with bombs and blood through 1945. But we have short memories. King George is someone you read about in the history books. The men and women who fought (or survived) the Nazis are mostly dead now, as are the Japanese held in internment camps. Joe McCarthy was dead by the time most of us were born. Stalin is gone and the Russians are our "friends" now. Rwanda was far away and we don't know any of those people. The things our government does are generally somewhat less bad than the things those governments did, which makes constitutional provisions that impede tyranny start to look more like the proverbial bear-repelling rock rather than the cause of that fact. And it wasn't so long ago that some hell-bound sons of bitches made a permanent modification to the New York City skyline. Which tempts us to forget the millions who have died at the hands of bad governments in order to avenge the thousands who died in the towers. People want simple solutions. The FBI says they want X. They say X will help the FBI catch terrorists. But it will also help the Chinese government catch dissidents. It will help dictators catch revolutionaries. It will help terrorists and foreign governments conduct espionage. The FBI doesn't tell you that part.

ck2 13y ago

Many times people rightly ask "why on earth would a terrorist blow up a plane or building or make roadside bombs" ? Their goal is exactly what we are now marching into: people fearing and loathing their overbearing governments. It's the subtle goal of the terrorist, to make authority behave so badly that the subjects do the work for the terrorists. The really bad thing is I cannot imagine any near-future administration led by any known party behaving any better. It's always going to be the "stop us if you can" mentality.

obviouslygreen 13y ago
While that is one phenomenon terrorism is helping along, to ascribe a single goal to a large and disparate group of assholes seriously oversimplifies the problem.
- meric 13y ago
  It was the goal of at least one terrorist organisation. http://rense.com/general59/bank.htm http://rense.com/general59/bank.htm
Taylorious 13y ago
Yes, I'm sure a man who is likely a father and husband, suicide bombs some place so that you would have to live in fear of being molested by the TSA. That makes sense.
- JshWright 13y ago
  If someone believes a foreign government poses a real danger to the future welfare of his wife and kids, then his love for them becomes a motivator, not something to dissuade him.
- ck2 13y ago
  They cannot know the final form of the harassment the government will come up with - but they know something will become overbearing. And the individual doing the act of terrorism doesn't have to be the one being devious, in fact the lack of intelligence is exactly what those putting the idea into their head count on.