Chertoff turns to broad new wiretap method on inte

Status
Not open for further replies.

thirty-thirty

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
178
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6154457.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI turns to broad new wiretap method

01 / 30 / 07 |
FBI turns to broad new wiretap method. The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed.

Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.

Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.

Call it the vacuum-cleaner approach. It's employed when police have obtained a court order and an Internet service provider can't "isolate the particular person or IP address" because of technical constraints, says Paul Ohm, a former trial attorney at the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. (An Internet Protocol address is a series of digits that can identify an individual computer.)

That kind of full-pipe surveillance can record all Internet traffic, including Web browsing--or, optionally, only certain subsets such as all e-mail messages flowing through the network. Interception typically takes place inside an Internet provider's network at the junction point of a router or network switch.

The technique came to light at the Search & Seizure in the Digital Age symposium held at Stanford University's law school on Friday. Ohm, who is now a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Richard Downing, a CCIPS assistant deputy chief, discussed it during the symposium.

In a telephone conversation afterward, Ohm said that full-pipe recording has become federal agents' default method for Internet surveillance. "You collect wherever you can on the (network) segment," he said. "If it happens to be the segment that has a lot of IP addresses, you don't throw away the other IP addresses. You do that after the fact."

"You intercept first and you use whatever filtering, data mining to get at the information about the person you're trying to monitor," he added.

On Monday, a Justice Department representative would not immediately answer questions about this kind of surveillance technique.

"What they're doing is even worse than Carnivore," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who attended the Stanford event. "What they're doing is intercepting everyone and then choosing their targets."

When the FBI announced two years ago it had abandoned Carnivore, news reports said that the bureau would increasingly rely on Internet providers to conduct the surveillance and reimburse them for costs. While Carnivore was the subject of congressional scrutiny and outside audits, the FBI's current Internet eavesdropping techniques have received little attention.

Carnivore apparently did not perform full-pipe recording. A technical report (PDF: "Independent Technical Review of the Carnivore System") from December 2000 prepared for the Justice Department said that Carnivore "accumulates no data other than that which passes its filters" and that it saves packets "for later analysis only after they are positively linked by the filter settings to a target."
 
Actually, this isn't all that new. Authorities have been doing this for many years and it's not as horrible as you might think.

The security consultant that helped the FBI catch Kevin Mitnick did this (with warrants and with the ISP's in question) in many seperate occasions, at The Well in SF, and at Netcom in Colorado.

It's more like this: You have a list of cars a suspect might use for getting away You might plant some traffic cameras on a few freeways that the suspect under surveillance might use to get away. You'll end up recording millions of cars, but only looking for 20. This is perfectly legal, and is a lot like what is done technically today.

What we have to watch out for is what is done with those 999,980 cars information. They should be discarded after the investigation. The warrant should only specify that you can use the data on the 20 cars you were looking for, not the other 999,980 cars.
 
"Authorities have been doing this for many years and it's not as horrible as you might think."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
It's much closer to recording all the phone calls in a neighborhood than a traffic camera.

Besides which, from a technical standpoint it's completely unnecessary. I'm a network engineer by trade, and its very simple to record only the information from one ip address, there is absolutely no need to capture everyone's information and then search it after the fact. I'm good at what I do, but if I'm better than the FBI has we have definite problems...
 
Hmmm...I have an estranged half-sister who works with the FBI.

So I can say

:neener: :neener: :neener:

and she'll get the message?


:D
 
ok, so it is bad if the government registers guns...

But somehow, if they collect all of our e-mail messages, internet postings, text messages and begins building profiles on us, that really isn't bad...

You know the founding fathers were afraid of the Government [period]. They were afraid of the Government knowing to much, which is why we have the laws that we have.

So seriously, this is a big problem. I would rather die a free man, than live in some sci version of today where Big Brother monitors everything to "keep us safe"... which they can't even gaurantee.

Government is like insurance. They make it larger and more encompassing to "keep us safe". When something gets through, which it always does, they "hike the premiums" and make it even larger and more encompassing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top