Vegas casino security kills man who threatened security

Lasertech says, "This article on CNN. com explains that FBI searches by e-mail using Carnivore only when there are valid court orders. FBI can trust this. I don't want to pour the oil too much, but from the same restrictions, the law enforcement agency needs to grasp what you already have. I thought there was.

You may like to read:

Frozen Embryos Are 'Children,' According To Alabama's Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling Kneecaps Federal Regulators

Jeff Bezos's Move From WA To FL Has Saved Him Close To $1B in Taxes This Year

RFK Jr. Wins Deferred Injunction In Vax Social Media Suit

Google Workers Arrested After Nine-Hour Protest In Cloud Chief's Office

This discussion has been filed. New comments cannot be posted.

FBI Defends "Carnivore" More Login

FBI Defends "Carnivore"

The following comments are for the contributor. We are not responsible.

Re:they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 1)

by Swerdloff (16397) Wrote:

The only point of pediatric patriot is that: to make your caution a little as if your civil freedom is eroded.

Don't be misunderstood, but many of the enforcement agencies are good people who have the desire to see justice.

And there are also hairdressing idiots that use the constitution as a toilet paper and give people like Joe McCarth.

In other words, privacy rights are not in the constitution, but the Supreme Court is implicit. However, the fact that the federal authorities can access e-mail freely, even if they are "court instructions only", can access all email they want is Article 4, 5, 5, 5, in the Constitution. I like Article and 6, but it is equivalent to saying that it is not actually applied to the Internet.

Your email is not a pure shared provider system defined by a telephone company, but through a proprietary system, so there is no reasonable expectation for privacy. Unfortunately, they may have a legal basis. I don't want to think about that.

But you have to wonder if you are ironic about the "child player and its same kind". Who is like a lolicon? Does it depend on who legislation? Probably abortion enemy? Or an abortion activist? Or Jewish? Or Muslims?

In other words, people in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and others, may have sent an email to Osama Bin Radin, so you should always be able to scan emails. 。

You who are giving up freedom for freedom (the freedom of the Declaration of Rights for the freedom to live without fear, or so you believe) are exactly the people de Tocqueville warned would cause the inevitable destruction of the "Great Experiment". You are the ones who would rather have a bottle of vodka, a can of Linux, and oral sex once a week than the freedom to save face from an intrusive government.

I'm on the side of "freedom". If I don't have to fear that the government will arrest me because they saw me chatting about DeCSS in email with a friend, I don't mind living in a little fear of my neighbors.

Re:Too much power regardless ( Score: 1)

Mpa000 ( 129787 ) wrote:

Yes. The point is that we need to protect the FBI from its weaknesses and those of the specific individuals involved.

As long as there are alternatives (double routing only traffic controlled by court order would be the most logical), there is no reason to put a system that is open to abuse in the hands of any agency.

As for proving that they can handle it, I don't think we should put it to the test.

The scariest thing about the CNN article and other articles the FBI is responding to is that the only thing they seem to have learned is to come up with better names for these projects. They see this as a public relations issue, not a privacy issue.

Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 4)

I don't understand why the FBI can't continue tapping phone lines as they do traditionally under current law. Instead of an agent and a few cell phones, all they need is a modem and a computer to tap the connection.

Of course, people communicate by computer from places other than their home, but the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have dealt with pay phones in the past, or people calling from cell phones or work. (Often requiring an extension of a wiretap order.) Or they might use traditional wiretaps (small hidden microphones) or long-range directional microphones, etc.)

Why don't wiretaps directly connect to physical cables, which would instantly guarantee they could get all of their target's communications and not anyone else's.

There's no way they'd send someone to put a clip on a wire. Surely the central telephone exchange has a way to remotely connect and record calls?

This system also seems open to problems where clever targets could spread the communication to ignore by some packet shaping, so that the traffic doesn't match the IP address. Or worse, someone could fake what you think is a problem. But if it hits the physical cable you're using, it becomes a perfect filter. All his and no one else's.

The alternatives are

- The FBI thinks they can do their job for less money if they install carnivore boxes, and that they're not going to lose anything (or much) by mixing this and other people's traffic. In this case, I think they're just operating on technically incorrect advice. They probably hired a government contractor to look into the possibility of such surveillance, and then convinced themselves that it was necessary or that it would work.

- The FBI really wants to be able to illegally mislead people through everyone's email. (If I were a lawyer defending a young client who was "hacking" and reading other people's email, I would make sure the FBI agent explained exactly what he was doing with the box, and argue that without a court order, the agency couldn't punish my client for anything.)

Unfortunately, I lean toward the first case. Or maybe it was a blessing. I think the FBI is just wasting money, reducing the payoff from the new system, and wasting political damage (which they'll really need later). It's a big blunder that will cost the government a lot of credibility along with funding. If the FBI is going to regulate illegal phone activity, it's good to have an agency that's skilled both legally and technically, not incompetent.

What happened to mail-forwarding? ( Score: 1)

From Spinnerd (214213):

I have to question carnibore's lon g-term goals. Now I can only control emails, but what will I control five years later? The next time the bomb exploded at the Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center, they said to the FBI, "We are already scanning all emails. In advance, if there is a warrant to check the person's e-mail, there is no objection to the FBI. In the early stage of the Internet, the government is trying to open up as many areas as possible before the laws to restrict Internet activities. But the first focus of FBIs and related organizations is to defend our rights to protect our rights. You need it.

Re:There already *IS* a watch dog agency. ( Score: 1)

by Meldroc (21783) Wrote:

If the government refuses to disclose evidence due to concerns about secret maintenance (ol d-fashioned "national security"), the judge knows why evidence must be a secret. , Some people will personally detain government lawyers and witnesses. This happened in Area 51 and the incident on the secret activity being conducted there. When they all came out, the judge decided to keep evidence. LT / Rumble & GT < Span> Carnibore has to question the lon g-term goals. Now I can only control emails, but what will I control five years later? The next time the bomb exploded at the Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center, they said to the FBI, "We are already scanning all emails. In advance, if there is a warrant to check the person's e-mail, there is no objection to the FBI. In the early stage of the Internet, the government is trying to open up as many areas as possible before the laws to restrict Internet activities. But the first focus of FBIs and related organizations is to defend our rights to protect our rights. You need it.

Re:You Might want to check your facts. ( Score: 1)

by Meldroc (21783) Wrote:

If the government refuses to disclose evidence due to concerns about secret maintenance (ol d-fashioned "national security"), the judge knows why evidence must be a secret. , Some people will personally detain government lawyers and witnesses. This happened in Area 51 and the incident on the secret activity being conducted there. When they all came out, the judge decided to keep evidence. I have to question the lon g-term goals of LT / Rumble & GT Carnibore. Now I can only control emails, but what will I control five years later? The next time the bomb exploded at the Oklahoma City or the World Trade Center, they said to the FBI, "We are already scanning all emails. In advance, if there is a warrant to check the person's e-mail, there is no objection to the FBI. In the early stage of the Internet, the government is trying to open up as many areas as possible before the laws to restrict Internet activities. But the first focus of FBIs and related organizations is to defend our rights to protect our rights. You need it.

Open Source Carnivore & Congress ( Score: 3)

by Meldroc (21783) Wrote:If the government refuses to disclose evidence due to concerns about secret maintenance (ol d-fashioned "national security"), the judge knows why evidence must be a secret. , Some people will personally detain government lawyers and witnesses. This happened in Area 51 and the incident on the secret activity being conducted there. When they all came out, the judge decided to keep evidence. LT / Rumble & GT

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 1)

From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

"The installation of sarcophagus is" all of the installation of the sarcophagus "that Berry has collected data, but the FBI has collected data. This is "close cooperation."

FROM MBLAZE (71452) WROTE: Saturday, July 22, 2000 @05: 01pm ( #912969)

Homepage

By rgristerOPH (86936) wrote:

The easiest way to monitor Internet traffic is to launch/ use the server. "

So? The FBI doesn't have to monitor the Internet traffic and don't want to. However, the FBI often does, should do so, and needs to build a system that allows all traffic traffic from a specific individual. The FBI's mission to follow the law and order and comply with the constitution is not necessary to investigate the parcel from a person without a warrant, in fact, not only infringes someone's privacy, but also spends it for its mission. It is also a waste of resources. Why is the funds spent on carnivoa, for example, are spent on the production of one expensive device that can connect to any DSL line in any domestic provider? Looking at the packet log, it is like extracting websites, e-mails visited at HTTP, and emails sent via we b-based interfaces such as HOTMAIL or Yahoo. .

Carnivore as a necessary law enforcement tool? ( Score: 2)

The FBI will not take a warrant and investigate the entire Internet. However,*people*, which is the subject of a specific criminal investigation, is sometimes subject to collecting information brought by the FBI.

FBIs and other law enforcement agencies need to consider how to maintain a system that can monitor people when needed and needed. And the system is not a purely technical box or computer program. It must be an organizational system not only for technical infrastructure, but also with costs, connecting routes with other organizations, established methods for obtaining a warrant or a wired order.

Where is sarcophagus positioned in such a system? < SPAN> FROM Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

"The installation of sarcophagus is" all of the installation of the sarcophagus "that Berry has collected data, but the FBI has collected data. This is "close cooperation."

FROM MBLAZE (71452) WROTE: Saturday, July 22, 2000 @05: 01pm ( #912969)

not exactly ( Score: 1)

Homepage

By rgristerOPH (86936) wrote:

The easiest way to monitor Internet traffic is to launch/ use the server. "

Re:If the FBI wants my email. ( Score: 1)

So? The FBI doesn't have to monitor the Internet traffic and don't want to. However, the FBI often does, should do so, and needs to build a system that allows all traffic traffic from a specific individual. The FBI's mission to follow the law and order and comply with the constitution is not necessary to investigate the parcel from a person without a warrant, in fact, not only infringes someone's privacy, but also spends it for its mission. It is also a waste of resources. Why is the funds spent on carnivoa, for example, are spent on the production of one expensive device that can connect to any DSL line in any domestic provider? Looking at the packet log, it is like extracting websites, e-mails visited at HTTP, and emails sent via we b-based interfaces such as HOTMAIL or Yahoo. .

The FBI will not take a warrant and investigate the entire Internet. However,*people*, which is the subject of a specific criminal investigation, is sometimes subject to collecting information brought by the FBI.

Re:Historicly Americans Will Give up Rights ( Score: 1)

FBIs and other law enforcement agencies need to consider how to maintain a system that can monitor people when needed and needed. And the system is not a purely technical box or computer program. It must be an organizational system not only for technical infrastructure, but also with costs, connecting routes with other organizations, established methods for obtaining a warrant or a wired order.

Where is sarcophagus positioned in such a system? From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

What statistics on unauthorized wire taps? ( Score: 1)

So? The FBI doesn't have to monitor the Internet traffic and don't want to. However, the FBI often does, should do so, and needs to build a system that allows all traffic traffic from a specific individual. The FBI's mission to follow the law and order and comply with the constitution is not necessary to investigate the parcel from a person without a warrant, in fact, not only infringes someone's privacy, but also spends it for its mission. It is also a waste of resources. Why is the funds spent on carnivoa, for example, are spent on the production of one expensive device that can connect to any DSL line in any domestic provider? Looking at the packet log, it is like extracting websites, e-mails visited at HTTP, and emails sent via we b-based interfaces such as HOTMAIL or Yahoo. .

FROM MBLAZE (71452) WROTE: Saturday, July 22, 2000 @05: 01pm ( #912969)

You Might want to check your facts. ( Score: 2)

Homepage

By rgristerOPH (86936) wrote:

Can they be trusted with it? Do we have a choice? ( Score: 2)

The easiest way to monitor Internet traffic is to launch/ use the server. "

So? The FBI doesn't have to monitor the Internet traffic and don't want to. However, the FBI often does, should do so, and needs to build a system that allows all traffic traffic from a specific individual. The FBI's mission to follow the law and order and comply with the constitution is not necessary to investigate the parcel from a person without a warrant, in fact, not only infringes someone's privacy, but also spends it for its mission. It is also a waste of resources. Why is the funds spent on carnivoa, for example, are spent on the production of one expensive device that can connect to any DSL line in any domestic provider? Looking at the packet log, it is like extracting websites, e-mails visited at HTTP, and emails sent via we b-based interfaces such as HOTMAIL or Yahoo. .

m4ki|\|G 4|\| 31337 |30|3m ( Score: 1)

The FBI will not take a warrant and investigate the entire Internet. However,*people*, which is the subject of a specific criminal investigation, is sometimes subject to collecting information brought by the FBI. FBIs and other law enforcement agencies need to consider how to maintain a system that can monitor people when needed and needed. And the system is not a purely technical box or computer program. It must be an organizational system not only for technical infrastructure, but also with costs, connecting routes with other organizations, established methods for obtaining a warrant or a wired order.

What about the Fourth ( Score: 1)

Where is sarcophagus positioned in such a system?

I think at least some FBIs are concerned from this perspective. They may have felt a threat to established monitoring systems with the increase in Internet communication. There are many people in the FBI that agree with the tone as described in this thread, but the current FBI culture can extinguish technical criticism. The upper administrator type may hire an inappropriate "consultant" and make a survey and proposal. And the suggestions may gain great momentum and crush all the opposition based on the fact that it is too costly.

Re:X Developers and the future ( Score: 1)

Mistere (147118) is written:

It seems that something is lacking in Carnivoa's discussion. If they have a court order to search for Joe Geek's email, just give all the copies on his reel list on the ISP! It's easy!

Re:What about web-based mail? IRC? ( Score: 2)

Everyone, CARNIVORE is a fishing gear designed to avoid troublesome restrictions such as Article 4 and 5 of the Constitution [Cornell. edu]. If Carnivore is installed on your ISP, you can think that your email is scanned with all other e-mails (otherwise, why the functions will be so secret. Are you scanning thousands of emails? So, is it only for those who have a name in the investigation warrant? Yes, that's right!

ISP Institute Traditional New Policy: If FBI (or other "or other" other "Judicial" ministry's thugs) appear with carnibore to monitor emails in the ISP office, ISP is all affected by the contract. Is to cancel or stop (or, instead, raise the monthly fee immediately). This may be clearly justified based on the fact that customer behavior has accompanied ISP additional time and expenses (to deal with FBI and additional hardware). If the cost of T1 rises 100 % overnight, the ISP is expected to transfer its cost to consumers. Court orders may not be able to tell customers the reasons for suspension of account or 100 % price, but ultimately the catch all missions protect customer privacy. I would be glad if my ISP stopped, canceled, and doubled the price when my privacy was impaired by carnivore (or other carnivor e-like prying tools). think.

Another technological breakthrough to help monitor serfs.

by delmoi ( 26744 ) wrote:

I think "essential freedom" is the key word here. If the FBI needs a specific court order to read my emails and encryption is not illegal, I don't think I've lost essential freedom.

No, they need a court order to "officially" read my emails. But with this box they can basically do anything.

Re:Come on, the FBI is a law enforcement agency ( Score: 1)

From AIXadmin ( 10544 ) wrote:

I wish we had all these cooperators. Police lose real bad guys every day just because they heard a toilet flush during a raid. Health, WFE =============================================.

wannabe ( 90895 ) wrote:

During the American Civil War, Old Honest Abe suspended habeas corpus and jailed Supreme Court justices who relied solely on the executive branch. Civil rights have been declining ever since. Whether we realize it or not, we live in dangerous times, and unless something is done to change that, we will all end up in an Orwellian future. As a percentage of the more intelligent part of the population, nerds need to take a more active political role and be more enthusiastic about choosing their representatives. Then, and only then, will this shit stop.

by AIXadmin ( 10544 ) wrote:

Re:they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 1)

In his original post, Hemos said he has seen statistics on unauthorized cable tapping. Where are those statistics? How were they compiled? In what ways were they created? How is unauthorized cable tapping defined? Is it something without a court order, or something where the data is more ambiguous? I bring this up because you have to be equally paranoid on both sides. "Men are stupid, men are smart" - Men in Black

BrookHarty ( 9119 ) wrote:

Re:Come on, the FBI is a law enforcement agency ( Score: 1)

We have both Calea and Carnivore at work, but there is no way to give federal agencies access to the network. They have to submit a search warrant, and we enable it. People forget that the FBI doesn't install this system. It's Brooke Harty

mindstrm ( 20013 ) wrote:

Open Source it ( Score: 1)

Come on. If they wanted to do it without the public knowing, they probably would have done it already. But you don't have to accept it. dgenius ( 162099 ) wrote:

Re:Come on, the FBI is a law enforcement agency ( Score: 5)

The l33t-5p34k finally has a purpose.craw ( 6958 ) wrote:

The Third Amendment has nothing to do with this issue. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner. A soldier? Living in a house? There is no hidden meaning in this amendment about wiretaps or interception of emails. This amendment was introduced because the British were stationing soldiers in private homes. This angered the public. Instead, let's read the Fourth Amendment. 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 on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The key words are 1) unreasonable, 2) probable cause, 3) supported by oath or affirmation, and 4) description of the place. This is the basis and rules for court-issued search warrants, and in this case, court-issued intercepted emails. Something the courts debate all the time is the concept of unreasonable reason vs. justifiable reason. Incidental discovery as evidence was recently ruled on by the Supreme Court.

cronio ( 13526 ) writes:

Correction to this page. AC posts start at 0, not 1, and posts you link to start at 1 unless your karma is x (20?).

Re:How can you try and defend this? ( Score: 1)

coyote ( 38515 ) writes:

This is what we call the "camel's nose under the tent" and there is absolutely no way the FBI would be satisfied with SMTP-only sniffing and be reliably able to do so.

Re:they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 1)

Do you think any serious drug dealer or terrorist would use their own email account? Especially when they know it's so easily traceable?

Or they'd use a combination of free and anonymous web-based email, etc.

Re:they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 1)

Encrypted messages in public. (The *real* reason for Slashdot's "hot" traffic: heroin code!).

Encrypted messages on IRC. Coded review on Amazon.

You can't believe that the FBI will not allow compromise enough to scan only SMTP traffic. Tell the faithful reporters to ask a softball question to find the reporters arrested for the next police performance. (Do you think it's extreme? Colorado's daily newspaper reporters have been accused of the federal government because they reported on the night attack on ecosystem protection). Even if Carnivore does not scan SMTP, it will be "overlooked", and it must be corrected immediately after the FBI knows it, that is, the CARNIVORE has died to monitor only SMTP.

SMPT AUTH & encryption ( Score: 1)

There is no doubt that the system or immediately afterwards will monitor all*traffic associated with the suspect.

Writing from dtolton (162216):

Privacy v. Security ( Score: 1)

They have the necessary functions to maintain the order of society. Obviously, the FBI needs some tools to arrest criminals if there is an appropriate reason. Carnibore is just one of the tools.

Email is just a kind of letter. By that theory, why does the government do regular inspections of the United States Postal Corporation? Because it is known to the people. People don't care about that because they don't think it will happen. If so, they will not know.

Rather, I think you should install an eavesdropping device that records all sounds in a place where people gather. The camera too. That way, people will no longer hide in public places and commit crimes.

Now, we have a lesson of history. We must not allow our freedom to be robbed in this way. We will regret.

From Gungadan (195739):< http://www.lbbs.org/sep/backl.htm#thecointelpro>

Re:they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 1)

If my dinner happened to include a special dessert brownie (for medical or entertainment), I would be one of the "bad people" that can be eaten by carnivores. The carnivorous beast will be imprisoned with 100 no n-violent drug victims each time a molester is caught.

Post from BNENNING (58349): < SPAN> I can't believe that FBI will not compromise enough to scan only SMTP traffic. Tell the faithful reporters to ask a softball question to find the reporters arrested for the next police performance. (Do you think it's extreme? Colorado's daily newspaper reporters have been accused of the federal government because they reported on the night attack on ecosystem protection). Even if Carnivore does not scan SMTP, it will be "overlooked", and it must be corrected immediately after the FBI knows it, that is, the CARNIVORE has died to monitor only SMTP.

Re:not exactly ( Score: 2)

There is no doubt that the system or immediately afterwards will monitor all*traffic associated with the suspect.

Writing from dtolton (162216):

They have the necessary functions to maintain the order of society. Obviously, the FBI needs some tools to arrest criminals if there is an appropriate reason. Carnibore is just one of the tools.

Email is just a kind of letter. By that theory, why does the government do regular inspections of letters passing the US Post Corporation? Because it is known to the people. People don't care about that because they don't think it will happen. If so, they will not know.

Rather, I think you should install an eavesdropping device that records all sounds in a place where people gather. The camera too. That way, people will no longer hide in public places and commit crimes.

Now, we have a lesson of history. We must not allow our freedom to be robbed in this way. We will regret.

From Gungadan (195739):

Formal Proposal to Janet Reno. ( Score: 1)

If my dinner happened to include a special dessert brownie (for medical or entertainment), I would be one of the "bad people" that can be eaten by carnivores. The carnivorous beast will be imprisoned with 100 no n-violent drug victims each time a molester is caught.

Post from bnenning (58349): I can't believe that the FBI will not allow compromise enough to scan only SMTP traffic. Tell the faithful reporters to ask a softball question to find the reporters arrested for the next police performance. (Do you think it's extreme? Colorado's daily newspaper reporters have been accused of the federal government because they reported on the night attack on ecosystem protection). Even if Carnivore does not scan SMTP, it will be "overlooked", and it must be corrected immediately after the FBI knows it, that is, the CARNIVORE has died to monitor only SMTP.

Bad things already exist. Oh no. ( Score: 2)

There is no doubt that the system or immediately afterwards will monitor all*traffic associated with the suspect.

Writing from dtolton (162216):

They have the necessary functions to maintain the order of society. Obviously, the FBI needs some tools to arrest criminals if there is an appropriate reason. Carnibore is just one of the tools.

Email is just a kind of letter. By that theory, why does the government do regular inspections of the United States Postal Corporation? Because it is known to the people. People don't care about that because they don't think it will happen. If so, they will not know.

Rather, I think you should install an eavesdropping device that records all sounds in a place where people gather. The camera too. That way, people will no longer hide in public places and commit crimes.

Now, we have a lesson of history. We must not allow our freedom to be robbed in this way. We will regret.

From Gungadan (195739):

If my dinner happened to have a special brownie of dessert (medical or entertainment), I would be one of the "bad people" that can be eaten by carnivores. The carnivorous beast will be imprisoned with 100 no n-violent drug victims each time a molester is caught.

Post from bnenning (58349):

Nobody is proposing to take away all power from law enforcement so that you can abandon this straw man. All we who oppose Salcovolo are asking for is that law enforcement follow the Constitution. Unfortunately, this position is becoming less popular as people allow themselves to become convinced of the imminent danger that hordes of pedophiles and terrorists are using the Internet to prey on children. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the FBI can already obtain suspect information by serving court orders on ISPs. Carnivore is tantamount to putting cameras in everyone's homes, but they promise to only watch the bad guys. Given their history, you'll forgive me for being skeptical.

by Rares Marian ( 83629 ) wrote:

So we can listen to them.

relevant nytimes story ( Score: 1)

From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

Saturday, July 22, 2000 @ 13:55 ( #912986 )

Re:they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 2)

Homepage Calendar

Oh, grow up. This is a kind of argument, an extreme inference. "The FBI should not indiscriminately read all email that passes through ISP routers" is very different from "The FBI should be removed from all law enforcement." I assume you also consider the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments [loc. gov] criminal. I mean, if you want to catch a criminal, why do you need a search warrant? It just slows down the investigation and lets the "criminal" go free. A free and sensible people should always evaluate any expansion of government power and determine its merits and appropriateness. What are we getting here? And what are we being asked to give up? In all the things being discussed about carnivore, I think we are being asked to give up important and essential rights, and in return we are not being offered something we don't already have. For the people to remain free and strong, government should never be treated as a black box. We are the masters of our government, and it is our right, our duty, to look under the hood and see how the engine works.

Otherwise, anyone can do as they please.

Yes, but we have to do the minimum. No one requires the release of the FBI armed here. However, your logic means that everyone should monitor the phone in case. Is it clear that it should be welcomed? If the motivation of the FBI is so clear, why is the operation of the sarcophagus and the existence itself kept secret for a while? Why can't the FBI get an email log from the ISP that collects email logs for a good reason? If the answer is "nothing", why don't FBI want to show the sarcophagus to anyone? If you are willing to abandon the basic advocacy of ("the rights of the people who are protected by the unreasonable search and seizure, the right to protect their personalities, housing, documents and belongings" in exchange for the hypothetical reward. Is American people worth saving?

From ZURK (37028):

The FBI will actually do it. If the FBI wants to eavesdrop on the suspect's mail, stop the mail at a local post office and find your mail. In other words, all the post offices of the surrounding blocks are around. That is the only way to intercept mail where you don't know. Did you really think you can check the mailbox?

Trust it?! ( Score: 2)

Homepage Calendar

Let's spread love.

PGP ( Score: 1)

Larkost (79011) wrote:

You should read a little about the system before posting. CARNIVORE is a computer system (like a laptop), patched into an ISP, and when the Federal judge signs the warrant, sifts the traffic in search of a certain person's traffic. After that, it is deleted by ISP. MP3 or other general things are not searched. An answering machine (this is a type) is used for terrorism and lon g-term investigations. This is just an example where the FBI is trying to catch up with a criminal (or is it committing a crime).

they need to catch the criminals ( Score: 1)

Just because you're not a "pirate" doesn't mean it's good.

If you apply the load (20822), it will be displayed:

Re:LOL nt ( Score: 1)

What is this? Does the latest version of Sendmail support SSMTP? Now that export restrictions on encryption have been alleviated, other MUAs will probably begin to move for encryption. So, if the FBI wants to do something like sifting after receiving a message by connecting the sarcophagus to the ISP mail server (although it is not strange), wasted taxes. Just do. .

By Voline (207517) Wrote:

How can you try and defend this? ( Score: 1)

"The person who wants to exchange freedom and safety is not worth either." -Benjamin Franklin

The history of the FBI indicates that they violate the laws that restrict political ant i-regulations. Rev. Martin Luther King from McCarth Sea Witch Hunting, Sispes in the 1980s (contrary to the US government's foreign policy in Central America).

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 2)

From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

If you are interested in the FBI citizenship and US law violations (depressing), we recommend that you read Ward Churchill's CointelPro papers.

by Firethorn (177587) Wrote:

In fact, a considerable number of people have been caught through chat rooms leading to email. I belong to the U. S. Air Force, but it was a good story that the OSI caught him when he was in a pinch. The base is in Colorado, but the man set a meeting in Missouri, flew there, and was abducted there. Of course, he used a work computer and agreed to monitor every time he used a computer.

From Millennium (2451):

Re:Open Source Carnivore & Congress ( Score: 1)

What I want to say is that the idea that the government is always doing fair and honest things is extremely sweet. The enforcement agency is doing unconstitutional things every day under the enthusiasm of catching criminals before committing a crime. This is neither a secret nor anything. If the power that can be abused is allowed, they can abuse it. Are they evil? i don't think so. But their job is not to prevent crime. It is you who commit a crime to prevent crime. The law enforcement agency is to arrest those who have violated their obligations. Not to catch someone who hasn't done anything bad yet.

Doesn't look good: reverse burden of proof? ( Score: 3)

But they have forgotten. We always hear how they want to call without any rights. The only reason they want such power is to exercise it. < SPAN> "No one who wants to exchange freedom and safety is not worth it" --Benjamin Franklin

The history of the FBI indicates that they violate the laws that restrict political ant i-regulations. Rev. Martin Luther King from McCarth Sea Witch Hunting, Sispes in the 1980s (contrary to the US government's foreign policy in Central America).

Re:At the risk of beating a dead horse ( Score: 1)

They are definitely still doing it. The Seattle Union, which opposes corporate globalism, is probably investigated using illegal calls. Because they are common. In other words, a terrorist. If you are interested in the FBI citizenship and US law violations (depressing), we recommend that you read Ward Churchill's CointelPro papers.

by Firethorn (177587) Wrote:

Re: ( Score: 1)

In fact, a considerable number of people have been caught through chat rooms leading to email. I belong to the U. S. Air Force, but it was a good story that the OSI caught him when he was in a pinch. The base is in Colorado, but the man set a meeting in Missouri, flew there, and was abducted there. Of course, he used a work computer and agreed to monitor every time he used a computer. From Millennium (2451):

Think yourselves lucky. ( Score: 2)

What I want to say is that the idea that the government is always doing fair and honest things is extremely sweet. The enforcement agency is doing unconstitutional things every day under the enthusiasm of catching criminals before committing a crime. This is neither a secret nor anything. If the power that can be abused is allowed, they can abuse it. Are they evil? i don't think so.

But their job is not to prevent crime. It is you who commit a crime to prevent crime. The law enforcement agency is to arrest those who have violated their obligations. Not to catch someone who hasn't done anything bad yet.

How the FBI can gain some trust ( Score: 1)

They are definitely still doing it. The Seattle Union, which opposes corporate globalism, is probably investigated using illegal calls. Because they are common. In other words, a terrorist.

The history of the FBI indicates that they violate the laws that restrict political ant i-regulations. Rev. Martin Luther King from McCarth Sea Witch Hunting, Sispes in the 1980s (contrary to the US government's foreign policy in Central America).

Re:Think yourselves lucky. ( Score: 1)

What I want to say is that the idea that the government is always doing fair and honest things is extremely sweet. The enforcement agency is doing unconstitutional things every day under the enthusiasm of catching criminals before committing a crime. This is neither a secret nor anything. If the power that can be abused is allowed, they can abuse it. Are they evil? i don't think so.

If you are interested in the FBI citizenship and US law violations (depressing), we recommend that you read Ward Churchill's CointelPro papers.

Not like an envelope ( Score: 1)

by Firethorn (177587) Wrote:

In fact, a considerable number of people have been caught through chat rooms leading to email. I belong to the U. S. Air Force, but it was a good story that the OSI caught him when he was in a pinch. The base is in Colorado, but the man set a meeting in Missouri, flew there, and was abducted there. Of course, he used a work computer and agreed to monitor every time he used a computer.

From Millennium (2451):

Re:Profiling ( Score: 1)

Where is sarcophagus positioned in such a system? But their job is not to prevent crime. It is you who commit a crime to prevent crime. The law enforcement agency is to arrest those who have violated their obligations. Not to catch someone who hasn't done anything bad yet.

Re:Open Source Carnivore & Congress ( Score: 1)

But they have forgotten. We always hear how they want to call without any rights. The only reason they want such power is to exercise it.

Why can you say that? As a result, we will manage filtering on the Internet as seen in China, Australia, and some other countries. I don't like pornography on the Internet and I don't read it. But I strongly oppose filtering. Because I don't agree with those who want to see such things, but I believe they can see them. I don't want you to block filtering because you want to see pornography. I want to block anyone who wants to see it because it should be seen.

Re:Doesn't look good: reverse burden of proof? ( Score: 1)

But the FBI method is not so. Will the SURETAP people deny the sacred rights of people when they seek such authority? no. They do not want people to receive. They want that power only for themselves. So, in terms of logical, they must want to use them (assuming they haven't used it yet). If nobody has the authority to do something, I don't think someone else should have that authority, but it is more intimate to use that authority, which is more intimate. It's completely meaningless to spend money to get to get. There are many bad guys in the world. Most of them should be in prison. They are not deserving freely. If the law enforcement agency is limited to fair and reasonable means to arrest them, more will hold the freedom promoted by committing the law. But I don't intend to sacrifice my freedom to take freedom from the guilty crime. I don't think people who think so will actually be happy.

where can we get carnivore? ( Score: 1)

(214269) from the infomatic (214269) writes:

For any new program, first try it in the government's monument ranking before unraveling the general public. I think Carnivore is a perfect tool to find out where the Vice President's email went.

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 1)

From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

In the CNN article

According to the FBI, CARNIVORE works like a "sniffer" and is designed to monitor and analyze network traffic to resolve problems such as bottlenecks in a previous program.

FBI officials believe that the more critics will not be afraid by knowing more about Carnivoa. Carnivoa has been used in about 25 investigations in the past year, including criminal cases related to conflicts and terrorism and "national security" cases.

Well, my interpretation is that they've already stripped enough ISPs to use as evidence in 25 investigations in the last year. So, you know, your ISP already has it, they don't have to tell you, and they're spying on all of your SMTP email for the last year. This pisses me off.

1) Anyone who spies on me without telling me and makes my ISP comply is violating my privacy and using my ISP as a means to spy on me. Jaka-jaka.

Yet Annother "Bash Microsoft" artical ( Score: 2)

2) My ISP took my money and didn't tell me that they were allowing me to spy on them. I haven't done anything to make the FBI suspicious. So, as long as I pay for internet service, my ISP is a thief and a thug.

3) This has been going on for at least a year (maybe longer), so that means the FBI is likely spying on all of us right now. Operator

4) It's wrong to say that these "sniffers" have always been around. Sniffers that monitor network traffic (like hitboxes) existed to monitor visits, not to spy on people. Wrong, wrong, CNN.

5) Network administrators are nothing like Big Brother.

Think about your rights. And how lonely they are.

Kris botboy60@hotmail. com Nerdnetwork.

From RGRistroph ( 86936 ) wrote:

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 1)

From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

by Grahamsz (150076) Wrote:

However, assuming that this system can catch a drug seller as easily as searching for cracks, why not expand the system to search other words?

Re:Guilty By Omission ( Score: 1)

Soon in the UK, CARNIVORE's limited version will be introduced, and you will be able to search for illegal activities.

I don't want a criminal state, but I don't want a police state.

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 2)

From Civilized Tension (45686) is written:

Terrorists, organizational crimes, drug traffickers, and pediatric people cannot be trapped. Then why encrypted? Surely they will only spend time pursuing people who are just breaking the law. Because it is easy for those people to catch and prosecute.

Grahamsz (150076) writes:

There's no way we can trust a system like Carnivore. I definitely think it's problematic to put it with a Tyrannosaurus.

by ryanw ( 131814 ) wrote:

Well, if everyone starts using PGP, tracking email will be meaningless except to know who it came from, when, and where it went.

DefCon 8 upcoming ( Score: 1)

by pope nihil ( 85414 ) wrote:

The FBI shouldn't invade people's privacy, but if they need to use it to catch pedophiles and the like, I think we're willing to give up some freedom. Think about the bad guys you can thwart, not the fact that someone might accidentally read your dinner plans.

Hope is out there! ( Score: 1)

by pen ( 7191 ) wrote:

Did you forget that Slashdot defaults to threaded mode, which means you only see top-level comments? No, I'm not the AC you're replying to.

by HerrNewton ( 39310 ) writes:

Re:There already *IS* a watch dog agency. ( Score: 3)

Sarcophagus is like looking at an old party line. Sure, you'll get suspicious communications, but you'll also get a lot of other communications you don't need. If the FBI wanted to shuffle your mail, would they jam the mail car? No.craw ( 6958 ) wrote: If the FBI wanted to reduce the amount of information they collect, they could get a few thousand times less by just accessing your phone line.

I think it's just as easy to extract mailers from a data stream as it is to look for anything else. Sniffers usually do some sort of sorting of the raw information, so you can pull out the email messages.

Let's say a suspect signs up for a yahoo or hotmail account. All emails go through the ISP formatted as html pages or html submissions, so a sarcophagus might not know about it. But if you click directly on that line, you'll get links to all kinds of sites that you can sort through.

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 2)

So why do the carnivorous stuff? I think they just don't know what the hell they're doing. If you get a wiretap order and can't tell me what Hotmail account someone is using when they call, that's just incompetent. I expect more from them. Maybe Carnivore has lots of packet level information and knows about other protocols like http, irc, ftp, telnet? If the FBI wanted to reduce the amount of information they collect, they could get a few thousand times less by just accessing your phone line.

I hope they'll be on C-SPAN on Monday the 24th.

" says Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution.

GOOD FAITH? ( Score: 1)

Exactly. An interesting template for pleading with reviewers. Surely the standard is for the FBI to prove that what they're doing is appropriate? I don't think anything will come out of the hearings.

Khym (117618) writes:

Re:Trust it?! ( Score: 1)

The FBI will only use Carnivore to screen emails if they have a valid court order. So why do they need it? The system is set up to allow such searches if necessary. There are already plenty of alternatives to the "mysterious black box." Just speculating here, but Carnivore can store information from a while back. So if the FBI gets a court order, they can see some of the activity before they get the order, not just the activity after it's been deleted. Let's say you're an idiot. And let's say you're a member of Congress. But I repeat.

Monitoring the Monitors ( Score: 1)

Account_deleted (4530225) writes:

Comment deleted based on deletion of user account.

monitoring communications is okay ( Score: 2)

by Mickwd (196449) wrote:

In the UK, the recent RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) Bill will force all ISPs to install similar surveillance equipment (and pay for most of it too). And if they encrypt data, they will have to provide a decryption key on request or face up to two years in prison. If you go so far as to say that they are (or have been) allowed to use the internet, you could face prison time as well. One of the best sources of information for those interested is here. [fipr. org].

Freedom ( Score: 1)

From Khym (117618) wrote:

First, provide carnibore source code to organizations such as ACLU and EFF (probably under NDA). Alternatively, give it to two or more different groups and have them all check the code. Then, let one group of them collect the actual program and sign digital. This is done with the FBI to make sure that a no n-government team has not escaped the program. The digital signed copy is given to ISP, and after EFF or someone reviews the code, it can be seen that no one has been in the program. Finally, instead of the program directly provides information to the FBI, the information is sent to someone inside the ISP, and before the person transfers to the FBI, make sure that there is a court order. This makes it more difficult for the FBI to exploit the system. Carnivore can encrypt all emails except the header so that the ISP cannot be checked in the text of the transmitted e-mail. Let's say you were stupid. And let's say you were a member of the Diet. But I repeat.

by MICKWD (196449) Wrote:

Sorry-Please point out that the link above shows a specific view (I agree), so it is not a completely fair source.

There already *IS* a watch dog agency. ( Score: 3)

DONKPUNCH (30957) writes:

According to FBI officials, Carnivore scan only the "to" and "FROM" addresses and does not scan the contents of the email. It looks like an envelope.

Re:Guilty By Omission ( Score: 1)

different. Email exchanges are different from a letter. "To" and "from" are actually part of the content. Analysis of these fields will probably know the whole email. Rather, it is like reading a postcard address, and the content is only a few bytes.

Post from from Craw (6958):

Re:Guilty By Omission ( Score: 1)

Soon in the UK, CARNIVORE's limited version will be introduced, and you will be able to search for illegal activities.

From MBLAZE (71452) Wrote:

Re:What about the THIRD Amendment? ( Score: 2)

So why do the carnivorous stuff? I think they just don't know what the hell they're doing. If you get a wiretap order and can't tell me what Hotmail account someone is using when they call, that's just incompetent. I expect more from them. Maybe Carnivore has lots of packet level information and knows about other protocols like http, irc, ftp, telnet? From Mors (1419) he wrote: It is generally impossible to prove that you are not doing something wrong.

From Dave Sag (140186) he wrote:

Why can FBI enjoy fun? What about the open source version of Carnivore for us? That way, you can continue to spy with each other with a new open spirit.

by rgristerOPH (86936) Wrote:

Re:Think yourselves lucky. ( Score: 2)

So why do the carnivorous stuff? I think they just don't know what the hell they're doing. If you get a wiretap order and can't tell me what Hotmail account someone is using when they call, that's just incompetent. I expect more from them. Maybe Carnivore has lots of packet level information and knows about other protocols like http, irc, ftp, telnet? I see that there are two basic network monitoring types here, but perhaps the FBI's analogy system comes from confusion:

1) The target person is communicating regularly using the same computer or device. Dia l-up computers at home, workplaces and school computers correspond to it. This is a Wiretap model. Eavesdrop on everything that comes in and out of the computer. For telephone lines and DSL lines, go through a passive modem device on the line. In the case of a cable modem or workplace LAN, a sniffer needs to be installed (see below).

2) Surveyors communicate using multiple different devices used by others. This is a drug seller who always uses different public telephones, or a person who works on multiple public computers in libraries and schools and uses different things every time. Such cases do not apply to Waretap models, and may be trying to do the FBI, but there is no reason to make Suretap according to the situation. In such a case, a court order will be obtained for another type of monitoring. Just as the search subject does not press all public phones, it will not install sarcophagu s-type devices at schools or libraries.

Re:If the FBI wants my email. ( Score: 1)

There is no doubt that the system or immediately afterwards will monitor all*traffic associated with the suspect.

From Felinoid (16872): < Span> Why can FBI enjoy fun? What about the open source version of Carnivore for us? That way, you can continue to spy with each other with a new open spirit.

So we can listen to them.

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 1)

Where is sarcophagus positioned in such a system?

I see that there are two basic network monitoring types here, but perhaps the FBI's analogy system comes from confusion:

Re:But this is a fallacy, a red herring. ( Score: 1)

There is no doubt that the system or immediately afterwards will monitor all*traffic associated with the suspect.

2) Surveyors communicate using multiple different devices used by others. This is a drug seller who always uses different public telephones, or a person who works on multiple public computers in libraries and schools and uses different things every time. Such cases do not apply to Waretap models, and may be trying to do the FBI, but there is no reason to make Suretap according to the situation. In such a case, a court order will be obtained for another type of monitoring. Just as the search subject does not press all public phones, it will not install sarcophagu s-type devices at schools or libraries.

(Note-Why isn't a sniper on the Ethernet where the target machine is connected not a violation of the same nature as a sniper? The target person*uses the Ethernet snuffer itself and is not addressed to your machine. It may be a secret way to get information.

From Felinoid (16872): Why can FBI enjoy fun? What about the open source version of Carnivore for us? That way, you can continue to spy with each other with a new open spirit.

by rgristerOPH (86936) Wrote:

This is a good thing. So why do you make a fuss about the installation of sarcophagus in the ISP? Certainly, if ISP only provides telephone service accounts, is that redundant?

So we can listen to them.

Re: ( Score: 1)

In fact, a considerable number of people have been caught through chat rooms leading to email. I belong to the U. S. Air Force, but it was a good story that the OSI caught him when he was in a pinch. The base is in Colorado, but the man set a meeting in Missouri, flew there, and was abducted there. Of course, he used a work computer and agreed to monitor every time he used a computer. From Millennium (2451):

Re:There already *IS* a watch dog agency. ( Score: 2)

(Note-Why isn't a sniper on the Ethernet where the target machine is connected not a violation of the same nature as a sniper? The target person*uses the Ethernet snuffer itself and is not addressed to your machine. It may be a secret way to get information.

From Felinoid (16872):

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 2)

In my understanding, this works at Microsoft Windows (Win 2K).

If you run Slashdot, you will see half of the reasons why Windows is not suitable for this kind.

Meanwhile, Reat Radios Thirty Secens With Esceron quoted, "This episode is the worst.

(LR used a UNIX system. Solarus laptop, Linux port stop, etc.).

Using Perl (please put your favorite UNIX folk here) to set up a filter that the FBI wants should be a little effort.

Re:Why not tap the physical layer ? ( Score: 2)

Of course. It is easy for the Windows Box, famous for its flaws, (be careful of the quotes enclosed) that should not be incorporated. You don't have to be a real defect. All you have to do is write a trigger in the code and pretend to be a defect. From RGRISTROPH (86936) Wrote:

However, the pathetic dia l-up line is exactly the pot that FBI thinks. There is no need to be bothered by dedicated data lines and large amounts of traffic.

But this is a fallacy, a red herring. ( Score: 5)

I don't think there is any need for IP phones. How is it different from using voiceover IP solutions on ordinary computers? If a subject is using a specific computer regularly, you can tap that computer and input all traffic into that computer. If you use a different computer every time, you need to consider the type of monitoring that is not intercepted. The interior model assumes a specific communication channel that can be eavesdropped regularly.

Writing from oakstump (211183): < SPAN> In my understanding, this works at Microsoft Windows (Win 2K).

If you run Slashdot, you will see half of the reasons why Windows is not suitable for this kind.

Meanwhile, Reat Radios Thirty Secens With Esceron quoted, "This episode is the worst.

(LR used a UNIX system. Solarus laptop, Linux port stop, etc.).

Using Perl (please put your favorite UNIX folk here) to set up a filter that the FBI wants should be a little effort.

Of course. It is easy for the Windows Box, famous for its flaws, (be careful of the quotes enclosed) that should not be incorporated. You don't have to be a real defect. All you have to do is write a trigger in the code and pretend to be a defect.