The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance.
In a statement to CNET, Subsentio President Steve Bock said that the measure provides a "safe harbor" for Internet companies as long as the interception techniques are "'good enough' solutions approved by the attorney general."
Another option that would be permitted, Bock said, is if companies "supply the government with proprietary information to decode information" obtained through a wiretap or other type of lawful interception, rather than "provide a complex system for converting the information into an industry standard format."
http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready -web-sites-now/
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:52AM
;lkjfg;kashg;okwahe fo[hy;jh e;u'lhjesfgvdj;jfvlshefpuiyhflkbaw;ifgpiu;hla'fhjw o[ipyhdsokhdkjao'ddlk;hlk;vasjdklfjhadfo;has;ofhwo lghkolahdgf;ojdeshl;hs;
(The above contains the secrets of the universe, encrypted. If you can break this encryption, you will never have to go to congress for funding, ever again! Just pull my finger . . ..)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:14AM
fool, you forgot to encrypt it with ROT13!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:23AM
Oh, Snap! All is lost, all is lost! (And I am not even Robert Redford, really. t00 m4ny S3cretz)
(Score: 1) by dmbasso on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:22AM
Too easy:
# Python
sum(ciphertext.count(c) for c in 'fhl')
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:23AM
Ha! Do you think I would be so lamebrained as to encrypt the secret of the universe in a simple substitution code, where a frequency count could possibly be of use! What language was the original in? Could the code have been temporally shifted? What is the starting salary at the NSA, anyway? Oh, no, I've said too much. (Losing my Religion, by R.E.M., but OMG, I just Googled that, which with the time stamp of this post, will cross vector pollinate my IP address, so once again, all is lost. Well played, sir, well played! )
(Score: 1) by dmbasso on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:36PM
You haven't actually tried to run the code, did you? :)
w o[ipyhdsokhdkjao'ddlk;hlk;vasjdklfjhadfo;has;ofhwo lghkolahdgf;ojdeshl;hs;"
Here, I'll make it easier for you... just launch a Python interpreter, an paste this:
ciphertext = ";lkjfg;kashg;okwahe fo[hy;jh e;u'lhjesfgvdj;jfvlshefpuiyhflkbaw;ifgpiu;hla'fhj
print(sum(ciphertext.count(c) for c in 'fhl'))
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:10PM
That can't be right! What was the question?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:26AM
Get the wrench...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:53AM
Sorry, I couldn't find a $5 wrench. The closest I've found was a $4.99 wrench.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:52PM
Blast! Our evil plan is foiled after-all!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lx on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:24AM
Avoiding the word "controversial" in articles and using "bat-shit-crazy" instead greatly improves the clarity of the text. Try it. It works.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:55AM
I am Aristarchus, and I approve the parent message. And God less America!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ryuugami on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:05AM
Agreed.
That should be added to the list of substitutions [xkcd.com].
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by Jaruzel on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:45PM
That should be added to the list of substitutions [xkcd.com].
I am SO hoping theres a Chrome/Firefox plugin that does this automatically for all news sites I visit!
-Jar
This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khedoros on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:49AM
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/xk
Choose your poison.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mendax on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:06AM
I wonder if this law will survive constitutional scrutiny by the courts given that some sites allow anonymity as well as secure communication, both basic constitutional rights in the United States. You know, there is a reason why HushMail is based in Canada, not the United States, and maintains their servers there. Of course, their history of cooperating with the courts in criminal investigations doesn't make them a safe haven but at least a U.S. court needs to issue a warrant first which is then reissued by a Canadian court.
Frankly, I don't trust the FBI any more than I trust any of the other three-letter agencies. This proposed law is a bad idea. Only God knows what other illegal government malfeasance will come out of it.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:02AM
SCOTUS is giving away our rights at an alarming rate. I'm sure they'll see the wisdom of this new law and even give the FBI authority to use this new access for free hosting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:33PM
It needs to be noted again and again that the Constitution did NOT set up the Supreme Court as a law-making body.
They are set up as the final APPELLATE court.
That means any decision they make applies ONLY to the case being heard.
Until a legislature passes a new law, the old law remains in force.
Lower courts may use the decisions of other courts as precedent, but are not bound by those.
The nonsense about SCOTUS being charged with deciding what is unconstitutional is fiction.
Judicial review [wikipedia.org] is an extra-constitutional power grab.
The Executive Branch can choose not to enforce a dodgy law--but that is a gray area.
Previous instances related to Judicial Review:
Abraham Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott decision.
Andrew Jackson was famously quoted, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:25AM
That's just rubbish. If SCOTUS says a law is unconstitutional then any and all laws that use that law as a basis (which is very frequent) become unconstitutional. Roe vs Wade is just one of many, many examples. The gutting of the Defense of Marriage Act is a much more recent example, as is Citizens United.
If you think that SCOTUS only affects the cases before it then you need to go back to law school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @02:16AM
If SCOTUS says a law is unconstitutional
Article III Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
.
Nowhere in there is "judicial review" mentioned nor "unconstitutional".
The word "appellate", however, IS specifically used.
As much as I admire the effects of Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade, it is out of SCOTUS's purview to make laws.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:22AM
Say hello to MaidSafe [maidsafe.net], wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and whitepaper+code on github [github.com]
There are other projects also, like Bitcloud [bitcloudproject.org], but they seem less organized. I bet that one of them will succeed.
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:26AM
I dunno if it's what MaidSafe really is, but they mention some mojonation-like credit system.
Now, if we switch cryptocurrencies from the antieconomic Proof of work, or the rather empty proof of stake. to assets like storage space and availability, it is a rather good idea. Hopefully the devs will take a look at networks like gnunet, that might have already solved some problems they will face. A DNS system, a search system and so on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:00AM
"The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms ... to build in backdoors for government surveillance."
Read as:
"The FBI is begging Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would retroactively legitimize the mass surveillance programs the NSA has and the FBI wants."
This very attitude is likely to increase opposition in Europe to maintaining the US-EU Safe Harbor provisions. If those go down, the Internet will start to fragment. It'll also continue to increase the market for snoop-resistant products and services that any good criminal or activist* will already be using.
*I'm already both in the eyes of MI5, MI6, the FBI and the CIA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday May 07 2014, @09:38AM
Is the US trying to destroy what little trust people have left, both in the Internet and in the US itself? Has the government understood nothing from the Snowdon revelations?
Backdoors can and will be misused, if not by third-parties, then by US government agencies.
The technical community is already working overtime to ramp up Internet security. This will only spur things on. Moreover, this provides yet another reason for all people and companies outside the US to avoid US providers at all costs.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:01PM
Not only US providers, but actually any provider who does any business in the US.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:48PM
> Has the government understood nothing from the Snowdon revelations?
Seeing as their response was to fire 90% of their IT staff and force down a plane containing a head of state on a rumor... I'd say we got our answer as to what lesson they took from Snowden.
> Backdoors can and will be misused, if not by third-parties, then by US government agencies.
It's the oddest thing. They're so desperate to force us to leave a key under the doormat for them that they don't realize that everyone else can just lift the doormat too. Even after some Chinese hackers (and others) proved it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-secur ity/chinese-hackers-who-breached-google-gained-acc ess-to-sensitive-data-us-officials-say/2013/05/20/ 51330428-be34-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
We've yet to see a security hole that wasn't exploited once found. Why would these ones be any different?
> Moreover, this provides yet another reason for all people and companies outside the US to avoid US providers at all costs.
Like with every other US export law restricting hardware, once again the world will simply "Buy Nonamerican". It's just another kind of foreign economic aid!
(Score: 1) by nsa on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:02AM
While your level of paranoia and concern is heartening, you are technically incorrect. For the same reasons Bruce Schneier was incorrect when he misreported that heartbleed attacks left no trace.
(especially) those who control the network can see the traffic going on there. You can log all your network traffic at home and inspect to your hearts desire. The current establishment is happy enough with the status quo based around the fiction that the network operators are unable to get undesired traffic off of their networks. I.e. that a U.S. ISP could not notice any such foreign usage of a backdoor, and prevent subsequent usage.
Yes, computers are complicated. But they are *NOT* magic. The magic is in leveraging the tendency of businesses like ISP's to want to cut corners and be lazy about security. We at the NSA are bad-ass with magic.
(Score: 1) by ButchDeLoria on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:59AM
Sounds like the FBI is just jealous that the NSA gets first knowledge about all the backdoors and wants in too.
Sorta like how the FBI changed their mission statement from law enforcement to national security, so they can get more government funbucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:00PM
teh Internet needs something akind to the "geneva conventions".
this is bigger then mere law enforcement which falls in cases
of war. no problem to murder someone if there's war. that's why they call it war.
furthermore, with telephone wiretapping there's a physical
hurdle/inconvenience that the agents needs to physically move
to physical proximity of target to tap the line (really).
with the internet you can do it from anywhere. there's no more physical
hurdle. a key-lock that is basically exposed to every human with a
networked computer. how can a guarantee be made that this "backdoor"
will only be accessed by law-enforcment, has no flaws, technical or otherwise
and that there is no back-door (military) to the backdoor(civilian)?
the internet spans the world (duh) and a sole country requiring a back-door
to a program that can be used all over the world sounds at best like a hegemonic
move.
obviously them criminals fleeing europe not long ago don't care much
about the rest of the world and do surf boards in shady cellars while
throwing tea in the harbor and thus geneva-compliant water-surfers should
taker note NOW! before becoming a "cyberspace colony" of a 3 letter country : )
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:07PM
the article is 2 years old
(Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Wednesday May 07 2014, @10:16PM
For some reason I'm filled with a sense of ease, like I'm home again. I wonder how slash is doing these days.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Subsentient on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:17PM
This article is from 2012, which is pre-Snowden. Yep, RTFA people. Even though I didn't.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti