Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wiretapping the Internet

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#21

Post by timwiseman »

marstall wrote: post #13

All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to wiretap phones, but people don't use phones as much anymore - they use IM, Facebook, etc. to hatch their devious plots. Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication…

Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication for the next 9/11 bombers? Or, for that matter, white collar criminals, bank robbers, etc.?

The obvious answer is no, but it is the wrong question.

The question is: Are we willing to provide them untraceable, secure communications to them when that is the price to provide it to people yearning for free speech in totalitarian countries? And are we willing to provide it to them when not doing so means all of our communications have exploits that can and will be used by non-governmental agencies as well?

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#22

Post by chopsueyar »

abalashov wrote: post #17
marstall wrote: post #13

All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to wiretap phones, but people don't use phones as much anymore - they use IM, Facebook, etc. to hatch their devious plots. Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication…

But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication for the next 9/11 bombers? Or, for that matter, white collar criminals, bank robbers, etc.? Yes, we do. Sometimes it is an inevitable consequence of the march of technological progress that certain legal and civil artifacts of previous eras must fall away, and we need to let that run its natural course, instead of trying to pu…

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#23

Post by marstall »

abalashov wrote: post #17
marstall wrote: post #13

All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to wiretap phones, but people don't use phones as much anymore - they use IM, Facebook, etc. to hatch their devious plots. Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication…

But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication for the next 9/11 bombers? Or, for that matter, white collar criminals, bank robbers, etc.? Yes, we do. Sometimes it is an inevitable consequence of the march of technological progress that certain legal and civil artifacts of previous eras must fall away, and we need to let that run its natural course, instead of trying to pu…

well - it's also possible to scramble calls on the PSTN network, but criminals often don't avail themselves of this ability. Which is presumably also the case on the internet. Hence a 'basic' level of IP wiretapping would still be useful to crime investigators.

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#24

Post by Hoff »

chris_l wrote: post #18
ErrantX wrote: post #3

This is the sort of thing that we get told will make my job easier. Take from the horse mouth; complete crap. Which is why you probably won't find anyone in the security or forensics business that thinks this is a good solution. One of my trainers told me something to me when I first started working on LE cases. He pointed out that catching criminals can only be made so easy before it becomes detrimental. And that po…

Care to give us an example of your last point? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Reducing the traditional ten-button numeric keypad for entering your access code can be simplified for law enforcement use by removing nine of the buttons.

Unfortunately, this LE optimization also eases the effort required by the burglars.

Or requiring WEP encryption.

Or requiring that all passkeys be registered, and all be stored on an LE database, and where a nefarious user can capture hundreds or thousands of keys...

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#25

Post by marstall »

timwiseman wrote: post #21
marstall wrote: post #13

All the government is asking for here is a continuation of the status quo. it's always had the ability to wiretap phones, but people don't use phones as much anymore - they use IM, Facebook, etc. to hatch their devious plots. Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication…

Wiretapping - analog or digital - requires a judge's approval in this country. Sure, it can be abused. But do we in the IT world really want to be providing an untraceable means of communication for the next 9/11 bombers? Or, for that matter, white collar criminals, bank robbers, etc.? The obvious answer is no, but it is the wrong question. The question is: Are we willing to provide them untraceable, secure communica…

Yes, it's a fair point. I guess I would say it seems like this proposed law is about creating wiretappability in general services like Facebook, Skype, etc.

There's really no way to prevent people from sending privately-encrypted data over this network though. I think the government just wants the ability to catch the lazy criminals who don't avail themselves of that kind of thing.

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#26

Post by adolph »

chris_l wrote: post #18
ErrantX wrote: post #3

This is the sort of thing that we get told will make my job easier. Take from the horse mouth; complete crap. Which is why you probably won't find anyone in the security or forensics business that thinks this is a good solution. One of my trainers told me something to me when I first started working on LE cases. He pointed out that catching criminals can only be made so easy before it becomes detrimental. And that po…

Care to give us an example of your last point? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Lets say that there are some licensed specialists who have tools that enable them to open your car door when you have locked your keys in it. These tools are illegal for anyone but the specialists to own or carry. That legal nicety isn't sufficient protection against thieves using the same tools as the specialist.

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#27

Post by brlewis »

andreyf wrote: post #19
brlewis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's no conspiracy theory. A conspiracy involves secret collaboration. The well-known negotiation technique of anchoring is all that theory is. It seems plausible to me.

Anchoring involves defining the value of something where it was previously undefined. What you describe is simply an extreme initial offer. You're right that it isn't necessarily sinister.

An extreme initial offer manipulates the "anchoring and adjustment heuristic" defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#28

Post by brlewis »

awakeasleep wrote: post #15
brlewis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's no conspiracy theory. A conspiracy involves secret collaboration. The well-known negotiation technique of anchoring is all that theory is. It seems plausible to me.

Do you have any idea where it could be leading? I've been thinking about it on and off for the past few days but nothing comes to mind, I don't have enough context to form any opinion. I'd sure love to hear what Schneier thinks about it.

I don't know where it's leading, or if it's even leading anywhere. For some people, gaining power over others is an end unto itself, not a means leading to some other end.

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#29

Post by awakeasleep »

brlewis wrote: post #28
awakeasleep wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any idea where it could be leading? I've been thinking about it on and off for the past few days but nothing comes to mind, I don't have enough context to form any opinion. I'd sure love to hear what Schneier thinks about it.

I don't know where it's leading, or if it's even leading anywhere. For some people, gaining power over others is an end unto itself, not a means leading to some other end.

I meant, what 'reasonable' thing will our gvernment ask for after being rebuked for this outrageous request

Re: Wiretapping the Internet

#30

Post by dasil003 »

xtho wrote: post #9
zacharypinter wrote: post #6

I particularly like his analogy: "It's like the FBI demanding that no automobiles drive above 50 mph, so they can more easily pursue getaway cars. It might or might not work -- but, regardless, the cost to society of the resulting slowdown would be enormous."

You like the analogy because a speed limit of 50 would result in a decrease of fatalities due to car accidents? I guess that's what he meant with "cost to society" since IIRC more fatalities result in a higher gross national product.

You do realize that you sound a little nuts right?
Post reply on HN