IP: two more on " I read this article and I can't help wondering." Beyond Carnivore: FBI Eyes Packet Taps

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:00:47 -0400
> From: Adam Shostack <adam () homeport org>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 04:29:45PM -0400, Caspar Bowden wrote:
> | >It might be helpful to refer to some of documents in the analagous
> | >proposal in Britain, which can require ISPs in Britain to install
> | >permanently connected "black-boxes". These feed into a hub monitoring
> | >centre in the MI5 building (equiv FBI Washington HQ). This became law as
> | >the RIP Act 2000, but is still being implemented.
>
> | >But it may become efficient if the filtering is distributed, and the
> | >protocols reconstructed locally, for shipping back to the monitoring
> | >centre for further analysis. The Home Office commissioned a study (now
> | >discredited at least in terms of cost) which seemed to recognise that an
> | >interface of this kind was needed, rather than just shunting raw packets
> | >back - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/techcost.pdf
>
>         I started to write a technical critique of this idea, focusing
> on the security implications of distributed watchlists, the costs of
> building such a monitoring infrastructure, the various and sundry ways
> to avoid it.  However, I think there is a more fundamental issue here,
> which is that the events of 9/11 were done in a very low tech way that
> all the machine surveillance and message grepping would not have
> caught.
>
>         We Americans really like technology as a solution, and here we
> see an interesting technical solution proposed, so we start taking it
> apart, and asking 'could you do this?'  I think the answer is yes,
> with enough money, we could build something that would be far less
> effective than a few hundred agents infiltrated, subverted, or turned
> to our side, reporting to us on planned attacks, making mistakes, and
> otherwise creating chaos within the opposition.
>
>         Why isn't the FBI taking that money, and using it to train
> agents to speak Arabic, Pushan, and Farsi?
>
> Adam
>
>
> --
> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
>                                                        -Hume

From: "Caspar Bowden" <cb () fipr org>
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: RE: more on " I read this article and I can't help wondering." 
Beyond Carnivore: FBI Eyes Packet Taps
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:53:54 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by linc.cis.upenn.edu 
id f9LKsB804182

> >The law allows the boxes to be remote controlled from the centre, so
> >that the target can be selected without the lawful need to serve a
> >warrant on an ISP.
For the avoidance of doubt, I sholud have been clearer: British law no
longer requires (as of July 2000) warrants to be served on ISPs if the
interception can be done without them.


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/