Police want backdoor to Web users' private data
Anyone with an e-mail account likely knows that police can peek inside it if they have a paper search warrant.
But cybercrime investigators are frustrated by the speed of traditional methods of faxing, mailing, or e-mailing companies these documents. They're pushing for the creation of a national Web interface linking police computers with those of Internet and e-mail providers so requests can be sent and received electronically.
CNET has reviewed a survey scheduled to be released at a federal task force meeting on Thursday, which says that law enforcement agencies are virtually unanimous in calling for such an interface to be created. Eighty-nine percent of police surveyed, it says, want to be able to "exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process" through an encrypted, police-only "nationwide computer network." (See one excerpt and another.)
The survey, according to two people with knowledge of the situation, is part of a broader push from law enforcement agencies to alter the ground rules of online investigations. Other components include renewed calls for laws requiring Internet companies to store data about their users for up to five years and increased pressure on companies to respond to police inquiries in hours instead of days.
But the most controversial element is probably the private Web interface, which raises novel security and privacy concerns, especially in the wake of a recent inspector general's report (PDF) from the Justice Department. The 289-page report detailed how the FBI obtained Americans' telephone records by citing nonexistent emergencies and simply asking for the data or writing phone numbers on a sticky note rather than following procedures required by law.
Some companies already have police-only Web interfaces. Sprint Nextel operates what it calls the L-Site, also known as the "legal compliance secure Web portal." The company even has offered a course that "will teach you how to create and track legal demands through L-site. Learn to navigate and securely download requested records." Cox Communications makes its price list for complying with police requests public; a 30-day wiretap is $3,500.
The police survey is not exactly unbiased: its author is Frank Kardasz, who is scheduled to present it at a meeting (PDF) of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, organized by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Kardasz, a sergeant in the Phoenix police department and a project director of Arizona's Internet Crimes Against Children task force, said in an e-mail exchange on Tuesday that he is still revising the document and was unable to discuss it.
In an incendiary October 2009 essay, however, Kardasz wrote that Internet service providers that do not keep records long enough "are the unwitting facilitators of Internet crimes against children" and called for new laws to "mandate data preservation and reporting." He predicts that those companies will begin to face civil lawsuits because of their "lethargic investigative process."
"It sounds very dangerous," says Lee Tien, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, referring to the police-only Web interface. "Let's assume you set this sort of thing up. What does that mean in terms of what the law enforcement officer be able to do? Would they be able to fish through transactional information for anyone? I don't understand how you create a system like this without it."
What police see in ISPs
Kardasz's survey, based on questionnaires completed by 100 police investigators, says that 61 percent of them had their investigations harmed "because data was not retained" and only 40 percent were satisfied with the timeliness of responses from Internet providers.
It also says: "89 percent of investigators agreed that a nationwide computer network should be established for the purpose of linking ISPs with law enforcement agencies so that they may exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process. Authorized users would communicate through encrypted virtual private networks in order to maintain the security of the data."
Some of the responses to other questions: "AT&T is very prompt." "Cox Communications seems to be the worst." "Places like Yahoo can take a month for basic subscriber info which is also a problem." "AT&T Mobility does not keep a log at all." "MySpace give (sic) me the quickest response and they have been very pro-police."
Hemanshu (Hemu) Nigam, MySpace's chief security officer, said in an interview with CNET on Tuesday that: "You can be very supportive of law enforcement investigations and at the same time be very cognizant and supportive of the privacy rights of our users. Every time a legal process comes in, whether it's a subpoena or a search order, we do a legal review to make sure it's appropriate."
Nigam said that MySpace accepts law enforcement requests through e-mail, fax, and postal mail, and that it has a 24-hour operations center that tries to respond to requests soon after they've been reviewed to make sure state and federal laws are being followed. MySpace does not have a police-only Web interface, he said.
Creating a national police-only network would be problematic, Nigam said. "I wish I knew the number of local police agencies in the country, or even police officers in the country," he said. "Right there that would tell you how difficult it would be to implement, even though ideally it would be a good thing."
Another obstacle to creating a nation-wide Web interface for cops--one wag has dubbed it "DragNet," and another "Porknet"--is that some of its thousands of users could be infected by viruses and other malware. Once an infected computer is hooked up to the national network, it could leak confidential information about ongoing investigations.
Jim Harper, a policy analyst at the free-market Cato Institute, says that he welcomes the idea of a police-only Web interface as long as it's designed carefully. "A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight," he says. "I think that's a good thing to have."
Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. You can e-mail him or follow him on Twitter as declanm. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site. 
On another note- $3500 for a 1 month wire tap? Really? That seems excessive. There must be something more to it than just checking a box on a computer screen.
Now, should these things be able to be filed electronically? Yes..... but the back door should be controlled BY THE ISPS and ONLY the ISP's...... and a court order should be needed to use said backdoor.
please do not give thisa type of thing one iota of power or there will be abuses of it.
The problem is, the evidence against you can be entirely fictional, and completely fabricated.
If the information obtained was simply a hint, a lead, a way for invesitgators to find a 'suspect', that they then research and catch in the real world - that would be one thing.
But, that isn't what they want to do.
No wonder Marxists such as Obama want to take away our guns; it's all about controlling people and their ability to resist an over-reaching gov't..
As far as the original part of this specific thread, I would remind marvindmeh what Ben Franklin said in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Law enforcement is always trying to make everything transparent EXCEPT for their own procedures and processes. Keep in mind what the inventor of PGP went through in the 90's. Phil Zimmerman was unable to leave the U.S.A. and spent years in the courts fighting the NSA, FBI and assorted law enforcement groups that wanted to outlaw PGP and put him in jail. The only reason PGP is still around and available today to us is because big business (yes, big business was actually helpful to us regular people) wanted strong encryption available for retail, banking, etc. transactions, and supported Zimmerman in his fight to make strong encryption available to folks other than the NSA, FBI & CIA.
What a pack of lies.
But hey, if US citizens stand by and let it happen, then the consequences of apathy will assuredly follow. Just like they did with setting up a Fed Reserve Bank in private hands, a poorly regulated Wall Street, and unwatched Banking practices..
You don't have a right to have private communications, thats what you give up when you have freedom of speech in a country.
No privacy.
The US Government is desperate to turn all private and secure communication networks into *free* and *open* networks, for the government to read/hear everything.
They are unhappy with China because China's internet policy doesn't cater for American agencies such as the NSA.
It's not an open internet in China that the NSA can tap into as easily as it can in the west.
That's what the spat recently with China was about recently with Google China, U.S State Department.
It wasn't really about Google China, it was about a bigger argument of the Chinese Government not agreeing to allowing the NSA to spy on Chinese citizens private communications.
China doesn't live in a free to say what you want society, so it doesn't have the *all your private communications need to be heard/read by the government* policy.
We do in United States and the west.
Some might say China is a better place to live when you weigh up all the pros and cons.
The place you describe, where everything's monitored, I've seen.
Prisons are that way.
I'm going to encrypt everything. You and your jackboots will have to work to get past it and spend two weeks and hundreds of manhours to decrypt my shopping list.
16 February 2006
UK officials are talking to Microsoft over fears the new version of Windows could make it harder for police to read suspects' computer files.
Windows Vista is due to be rolled out later this year. Cambridge academic Ross Anderson told MPs it would mean more computer files being encrypted.
He urged the government to look at establishing "back door" ways of getting around encryptions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4713018.stm
Encryption related so maybe you know already? http://revolutionradio.org/?p=5366
I do believe that this Big Brother thing is going too far. For all those in support of government up their a$$, well at least in the US, the constitution would be a good start for a decent read- old and out of touch with present times but still interesting and thought-provoking. When did we start taking giant steps backwards?
How this is frightening to me is the way our country is implementing this proposal. In China, we all know and realize our net communications is monitored. The government makes no secret about it.
Compare to the US; this whole plan has been clandestinely carried out. If it was not for the media, we would never even know we are being spied on, at the most intimate level. Furthermore, exactly what the government is looking for is not being made clear, neither is what we can be charged with.
This makes me feel more concerned about my net activities in the US than in China. In China at least, I know the rules, what constitutes breaking them, and what I can be charged with.
Just because a law enforcement officer if shortsighted and poorly educated about the principles of a free society, does not mean we should cast those opinions aside.
Ultimately if you want to believe the U.S. is still 'freer' than other countries, you are going to have to prove it. Rah rah rah, wave the flag all you want.
The U.S. is not a free society.
There are plenty of issues with Obama, so you really don't need to make up fake ones.
Second, Bush pushed for this kind of garbage.
No "buyer's remorse" since the new President has a brain.
Dennis, hang your head in shame!
To me this is NOT a partisian issue, but if the 'current' administration considers what their opponents might do with such power (it could make Watergate-type spying legal, for example) - perhaps they would hesitate to claim that power themselves.
All the cops are suggesting is a network so they can send search warrants electronically instead of via paper mail.
Not exactly Big Brother, is it?
It sounds like you are trying to protect the US Government in some way, do you have stocks and shares in private sector intelligence? Or perhaps you work for big brother directly?
See you should have wire tapped Declan as he was preparing his article, then you could have taken countermeasures, such as given him a lump sum of cash to word it differently.
Looks like your wiretap failed and the article got published.
We don't live in a free country any longer. One false move and you get one of the infamous FBI National Security Letters issued on you. You end up on a no-fly list. You are strip searched by the thugs in the TSA and you are lucky you can get your toddler's sippy cup past them.
Do not trust the police. The few of them who have become corrupted poison the whole barrel. Notice how they are rarely if ever held accountable for no-knock raids on the wrong house that end up killing people. They are not held accountable for tasing teenage girls unnecessarily. You can forget about it if one of them kills your dog.
Don't believe me? Check out the long list of abuses at these two websites:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
http://www.cato.org/police-tactics-misconduct
Not anymore, ever since the "Failed xmas day bomb *attempt*" we got full naked body scanners.
http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/blog/naked_scanners_naked_cctv_and_barefaced_lies.htm
And guess what, more attempted bomb plots are on the way "in three to six months", so the government can introduce more powers, laws and controls:
Intelligence chiefs say another terror attempt in U.S. is 'certain' in the coming months.
Washington (CNN) -- Another attempted terrorist attack on the United States in coming months is "certain," the heads of major U.S intelligence agencies told a Senate committee Tuesday.
Al Qaeda remains the top security threat to the United States, but a growing cybersecurity threat also must be addressed by the U.S. intelligence community, the heads of the CIA, the FBI and other agencies told the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Asked by committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein of the likelihood of another attempted terror attack on the United States in the next three to six months, the officials agreed with Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair's initial answer of "certain."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/02/us.terror.attacks/
It almost makes me want to charter my own flights when travelling, or taking a cruise ships.
See this article on:
Bosom bombers: Women have explosive breast implants
Authorities alarmed by possibility of surgically placed explosives
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123758
Just because there is a possibility, they now will want a palpation to ensure that you dont have anything hidden under human tissue.
Look, I'm not taking sides. I suggest you don't either. Otherwise you're playing into the government's hands. It's safer for them for us to quibble amongst ourselves about ***-for-tat, than to peaceably assemble by the thousands outside of their offices.
Because it's a republic state, not a true democratic state, you leave your power in the hands of people who are targets for special interest. In some way, they're all big business and big government.
Don't be fooled.
If you even knew what was in the Constitution, you would realize that Article 1 sets up this country to be a Republic, not a democracy, by way of the House of Representatives *representing* the people and the Senate, the States. Sounds like you need to be "got INFORMED" on your own issue.
Also, please dictate to us which rights should be enshrined in the Constitution and which ones should not.
Anyway, I thought you were anti-government (see his/her post below). So why the pro-government (i.e., pro-Constitution) post?
Yes, this could lead to a 'tyranny of the majority'.... but from what I have seen 60% of the American people wax back and forth between conservative and liberal depending on the issue put in front of them, and are more CENTRIST than anything else on most subjects.
I would really like to hear how you would pull off successful internet voting, that can't be tampered with, where each vote can be verifiably tied to an actual person. Where no one is disenfranchised because they can't afford a computer or are so far out in the sticks they don't have internet access. And I would like to hear how a disconnected Justice Department would work, too (and effectively).
And I'd like a Red-Ryder BB Gun with a compass on the stalk and a thing that tells time on the side.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Uninformed? I'd say the problem is that most Americans aren't informed enough about the erosion of our rights in this police state we call America. The Cato Institute is a respected and vetted Washington think tank. Most Americans don't realize that we've traded our freedom for so-called security. The weight of laws is onerous and a clear threat to liberty. I would challenge those casual readers of this article to start some searches on the following key words: anti-federalist papers, u.s. constitution, etc.
Also check out a great website that promotes free markets and a free country: www.lewrockwell.com
The police already know that gang stalkers are going around poisoning and irradiating people and do nothing.
They know who the perpetrators and the victims are but they neither arrest or protect.
Do web search on gang stalking for some info. The newspapers are too scared to mention it.
Maybe the real problem is that police can access user data at all. But that's pretty small potatoes given that the police can access your house, your car, your bank accounts, and your body cavities using the same process. Most folks call it "crime fighting" - and it requires a warrant.
And the NSA has Echelon, the FBI has Carnivore, both warrantless snooping into electronic communications of American citizens.
Customs officials at US ports of entry have authority without warrants or probable cause to seize any and all electronic media of American citizens entering the US, failure to cooperate will get your property confiscated without trial, and numerous criminal charges which you must expend larges sums of attorney fees if you hope to stay out of prison.
Without journalism, we never would know about these events.
So, don't tell me everything is just fine...
The proponent of this proposal wants full logs to be kept. It seems you are the one who doesn't understand the implications.
Full logs, means access to your every communication on the internet. The internet is not a physical thing, its is a communications medium only. It's the transfer of bits and bytes, 1's and 0's.
Your every communication via that medium, logged for the governments perusal - no more and no less what this guy advocates, an end to free speech, and enter the era of all speech recorded and searchable by the U.S. government.
What will the government do with that? Whatever they want to... history shows, you establish a precedent, and it's use expands, and continues to grow. Once you have the info, you begin to use it.
You can't tell a joke about a terrorist act in an airport - I agree with that law. But do you know why you can't tell a joke? Is it because jokes are in such bad taste, that a bad joke is now a felony offense?
No, hardly - it's because it clouds the system. Because they are searching for terrorist speech, and the joke makes their job harder - it's a false positive.
Can you imagine, yet...can you possibly get your mind around it yet - the next step in the eternal removal of freedoms and increasing power of the police state, is to remove the internets false positives.
Just yesterday I advocated overthrowing the U.S. government - here was my plan - to encourage the government to borrow money until it was trillions in debt and there was no money left to borrow.
Some people might understand, hidden in my comment, is actually a warning about fiscal policy, the true motivation - a desire for positive change and fiscal discipline.
But some might not get it. Soon enough you'll be going to jail for your political commentary. It won't be worded that way. It'll always be worded about security and terrorism.
The political opponents to the state, will be jailed as enemies to the state. as traitors. They are never jailed as hero's. C'mon.
They'll be labeled terrorists, and trouble makers, and only in a different country, will people say its wrong. Just the same with China. Inside China, there is surprisingly little resistance to censorship. Outside China, we decry the lack of freedom there.
That's how society works. The weak will gravitate toward the strong for protection and sustenance. You pay a price for that protection, primarily in the loss of certain freedoms and secondarily in what services or products you are expected to (or can) provide back to the society (which, depending on what skills you possess, could tip the scales a bit in your favor).
Let's say we revert to nation states (i.e., disbanding the federal government). Then you just have a different group of state government officials to complain about. Disband that, revert to city states. Again, you will have to submit to the will of the mayors and their officials.
Disband city governments and unless you're the biggest man/woman on the block, you'll be at the mercy of those with the bigger guns or the stores of food, etc.
So, all this talk about "losing freedoms" is a bit of a red herring. It's actually a natural part of living in societies. Sure, it's good to keep it in check, but also realize that the loss of some freedoms is a "necessary evil". Otherwise, good luck in the wilderness!
The problem is that a LOT of idiots today think that there are 'good justifications' for those laws, without using their BRAINS and thinking on the subject a little because they have been BRAINWASHED by numerous people from birth, saying that "X is bad!" so they cannot even DARE to think that those people might be wrong because..... they have been threatened to beaten down when they try to do that when they are children.
Before email and social networking, privacy was pretty much as simple as closing your door and blinds.
It was a hypothetical thought experiment, my friend. And there is no perfect world.
Order comes from chaos. Government, from anarchy. There will always be oppressors (and complainers) even if you get rid of (or emasculate) the Federal Government. Oh. And then the State government. Oh. And then the city government.
There's always someone bigger than you.
- by jane3381 February 3, 2010 7:34 AM PST
- Demerit: We're not asking to go back to the Machiavellian city-state. What we are asking is for this intrusive federal government to back off and stay within the bounds established for it at the framing of the Constitution. Those powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the States. What people don't understand since 9/11 is that we have indeed given up many many freedoms that we will not be getting back.
- Like this Reply to this comment 5 people like this comment
-
-
- by Demerit February 3, 2010 8:33 AM PST
- What are these "many many" freedoms you are talking about?
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
- by gsigas February 3, 2010 9:19 AM PST
- @Demerit that is fine as long as no one in power has any agendas. The easier it is for those in power to abuse it and mask it as legitimate the more risk for average people that just what to keep to themselves. If it is difficult and risky for an abuse of power to occur then the vast majority of people are safe from abuse (because presumably only big fish worth the person in power's risk would be falsely targeted). If it is easy to abuse power and there is legitimate cover for when the abuses take place then average people are at risk because the person in power has little to fear even when they bend the rules, for personal/political/convenience reasons, and they realize that once their target is branded as a criminal no one will listen to the average person or believe the average person's claim they were just minding their own business and trying to be good (because everyone will just assume that person is a criminal and not like themselves and deserves what they get). The opportunity for abuse of power should always be minimized and it should always be risky and hard.
- Like this 4 people like this comment
-
- by makardhwaj February 3, 2010 9:21 AM PST
- Demerit, one could say that is a big part of the problem. No one cares until they get that knock on their door. By then, its too late.
- Like this 8 people like this comment
-
- by Demerit February 3, 2010 10:10 AM PST
- @gsigas
- Like this
-
- by Lerianis4 February 3, 2010 11:11 AM PST
- Hmm.... let's see.. what rights have we lost.... the right to put into our own bodies what we want to put into them (the drug laws), the right to sleep with who we wish to sleep with (the sexual morality laws), the right to move around as we wish without government intrusion into our personal lives (the screening at airports and for car licenses)...... I could keep on going on, but you get the point, Demerit.
- Like this 2 people like this comment
-
- by Demerit February 3, 2010 11:45 AM PST
- @Lerianis4
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
- by bobarian1 February 4, 2010 5:50 AM PST
- I agree with Demerit. What are these "many many freedoms" we've lost?
- Like this
-
- by YSLGuru February 4, 2010 11:00 AM PST
- @Demerit
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
- by Demerit February 5, 2010 12:01 PM PST
- @YSLGuru
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (201 Comments)I feel like I can do the same things post 9/11 as I was doing prior. I own a gun, I drink my beer, I work hard, I take trips, I'm pursuing a second degree, I enjoy life, I keep to myself and try to be good to others (yes, even though I'm a staunch agnostic). Nobody's knocking on my door.
Everyone has an agenda. And your statement holds true for State governments as well as the Federal government.
@makardhwaj
I don't believe it's ever "too late". Reclamation of any *actual* lost freedoms may get only get postponed until a subsequent election or revolution, but it will happen. In that regard, I have faith in the men & women of the United States.
I still have yet to be given examples of the "many, many" freedoms that we've supposedly lost. If the threat isn't real, then it's perceived. If it's a perceived threat, then sure, it's a possibility and best to guard against it, but let's not peddle fear like the fanatic, fatalistic environmentalists do.
<br />
<br />[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Shame on you. Here we were, having a civil discussion and you had to go and start being unpleasant.
I think you were missing my initial point (see earlier post). Let me spell it out for you:
Forms of intrusive, fallible, corruptible forms of governing:
1. BIGGER: Federal government
2. BIG: State government
3. SMALL: City government
4. SMALLEST: The guy with the biggest gun or loudest voice shoving his/her ideals down other peoples' throats, manipulating through fear, violence, or name-calling.
Yes, I lump you all into the same basket.
Let's see... if the terror alert goes to orange, I can't fish from the dam, and....that's about it.
Sorry, I just can't seem to get my panties twisted into a wad over this.
"What are these "many many" freedoms you are talking about?"
Just because you personally have not experienced a loss does not mean none has occurred to others or worse to many. Have you not heard of Eminant DOmain? The Patriot Act and Rendition? Tell you what lets see if you respond this same way once you become the unlucky victim of Imminant DOmain and loose your house. or worse, if you are unfortunate enough to get caught up in something and its decied you are a threat and need to be rendeitioned.
Oh wait a sec, thats right if you get snatched by the Feds via Rendeition not only will no one know andnot only will you have no recourse including no access to legal concil whcih just happens to be one of those losses thats being reffered to but ut will all be supposedly legal thanks to the Patriot Act and so thers nothing you will be able to do but rot in whatever hole they stick you in.
So would you like to retract your prior comments now or are you gonna say I'm obe of those Conspiracy Nut Jobs who doesn't buy into Climate Warming, ere I mean Climate Change. I forget for a sec they had to revise the term since the clienate turned out not to be wamring after all.
BTW - Did you get you Swine Flu shot for the epideminc, or shoudl I say the fake epidimic?
"I'm obe of those Conspiracy Nut Jobs..."
Know thyself, eh? LOL. I wouldn't have associated you with those terms until you started going on about Global Warming and the H1N1 vaccine. But you just outed yourself!
Fighting for our rights is a good thing. But all things in moderation. If you take freedom to an extreme, you can end up impinging on the freedoms of others. Hey, maybe I want to smack my neighbor upside the head with a 2x4 ...but the government telling me I can't is probably a good thing.