4 ms·

It is worth noting that they often choose to do this the "loud" way, but the FBI has been granted warrants to pick people's locks and copy their hard drives wit

It is worth noting that they often choose to do this the "loud" way, but the FBI has been granted warrants to pick people's locks and copy their hard drives without leaving traces. Alarm monitoring companies are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that won't help you either.

cinquemb 13y ago
Someone could rig up their own system to notify themselves which is very doable. I can see the situation where someone gets notified, then emails their server to backup offsite, and wipe the hard drives (and for those well versed in demo, there's always that option…).
- betterunix 13y ago
  Why wipe the hard drives? Use WDE, and have the alarm (a) unmount the drive, (b) overwrite the system's RAM with 0s (or at least the portion of RAM where the keys are stored), and (c) power down the system. That is a lot faster that making a backup and wiping the drives; by the time an agent has snuck in and located the computer, the process should be over. Also, it might help to install a security camera, so you can tell the difference between a rat triggering the alarm and an FBI agent (I'll leave it to the audience to make a few jokes). Alarm is triggered, the camera starts sending pictures of the intruders to your smartphone or to Usenet (encrypted, using a key you keep on a smartcard) or whatever.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Evidence tampering is a federal felony. In this case it doesn't matter how well you covered your tracks - if they can prove you rigged a failsafe, you're going to jail anyway.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    >if they can prove you rigged a failsafe, you're going to jail anyway Because if someone is willing to go to those lengths on their own system, there's no possibility for the odds to be stacked in their favor…
  - betterunix 13y ago
    I think it might be hard to prove the evidence tampering charge. It is not at all unreasonable to claim that you were trying to protect important secrets from criminals who might break into your home or office. To put it another way, this is not an illegal device: http://www.ironkey.com/en-US/secure-portable-storage/250-personal.html http://www.ironkey.com/en-US/secure-portable-storage/250-per...
    - superuser2 13y ago
      If you had video confirmation that it was the police who tripped your alarm before firing a degausser, that would be pretty cut and dried. If it were automatic, maybe not.
betterunix 13y ago
It is also worth noting that the problem here is how easily the FBI can access your mail from GMail. Sneaking into a house requires sending agents into the field, watching a person to make sure they are not going to walk in on you, being very careful not to leave a trace or wind up on a security camera they set up, etc. The FBI only has so many people it can dedicate to these sorts of activities. They are not going to be able to do this to you, and your friends, and their friends; it's too costly and runs too high a risk of tipping off the target. With GMail, the agents do not even need to leave their desks. Just fax the court order to Google, and a few hours later you have thousands of emails waiting for you to read. Want to read the emails of the targets' acquaintances? Just send another fax! Nobody has to know, just call it a national security matter!
- superuser2 13y ago
  Relying on inefficiency as protection against the government is rarely a good bet. We've already seen a dramatic increase in national security spending; they will obtain the resources they need. We need a new Wiretap Act to apply to non-voice communications.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Inefficiency is the most important protection we have against tyranny. The entire design of our government reflects this: three branches, two houses of congress, checks and balances, limits on how laws can be enforced, etc. Inefficiency is the only thing that ever stood between the USA and tyranny. The real problem is that we have allowed the government to become far too efficient over the past few decades.

cinquemb 13y ago

Someone could rig up their own system to notify themselves which is very doable. I can see the situation where someone gets notified, then emails their server to backup offsite, and wipe the hard drives (and for those well versed in demo, there's always that option…).

betterunix 13y ago
Why wipe the hard drives? Use WDE, and have the alarm (a) unmount the drive, (b) overwrite the system's RAM with 0s (or at least the portion of RAM where the keys are stored), and (c) power down the system. That is a lot faster that making a backup and wiping the drives; by the time an agent has snuck in and located the computer, the process should be over. Also, it might help to install a security camera, so you can tell the difference between a rat triggering the alarm and an FBI agent (I'll leave it to the audience to make a few jokes). Alarm is triggered, the camera starts sending pictures of the intruders to your smartphone or to Usenet (encrypted, using a key you keep on a smartcard) or whatever.
superuser2 13y ago
Evidence tampering is a federal felony. In this case it doesn't matter how well you covered your tracks - if they can prove you rigged a failsafe, you're going to jail anyway.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  >if they can prove you rigged a failsafe, you're going to jail anyway Because if someone is willing to go to those lengths on their own system, there's no possibility for the odds to be stacked in their favor…
- betterunix 13y ago
  I think it might be hard to prove the evidence tampering charge. It is not at all unreasonable to claim that you were trying to protect important secrets from criminals who might break into your home or office. To put it another way, this is not an illegal device: http://www.ironkey.com/en-US/secure-portable-storage/250-personal.html http://www.ironkey.com/en-US/secure-portable-storage/250-per...
  - superuser2 13y ago
    If you had video confirmation that it was the police who tripped your alarm before firing a degausser, that would be pretty cut and dried. If it were automatic, maybe not.

betterunix 13y ago

It is also worth noting that the problem here is how easily the FBI can access your mail from GMail. Sneaking into a house requires sending agents into the field, watching a person to make sure they are not going to walk in on you, being very careful not to leave a trace or wind up on a security camera they set up, etc. The FBI only has so many people it can dedicate to these sorts of activities. They are not going to be able to do this to you, and your friends, and their friends; it's too costly and runs too high a risk of tipping off the target. With GMail, the agents do not even need to leave their desks. Just fax the court order to Google, and a few hours later you have thousands of emails waiting for you to read. Want to read the emails of the targets' acquaintances? Just send another fax! Nobody has to know, just call it a national security matter!

superuser2 13y ago
Relying on inefficiency as protection against the government is rarely a good bet. We've already seen a dramatic increase in national security spending; they will obtain the resources they need. We need a new Wiretap Act to apply to non-voice communications.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Inefficiency is the most important protection we have against tyranny. The entire design of our government reflects this: three branches, two houses of congress, checks and balances, limits on how laws can be enforced, etc. Inefficiency is the only thing that ever stood between the USA and tyranny. The real problem is that we have allowed the government to become far too efficient over the past few decades.