backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 95 comment(s) - last by jadeskye.. on Oct 21 at 4:33 PM
CopyRouter wants to silently stand between users and child pornography

Australian company Brilliant Digital Entertainment Ltd. – known formerly as Altnet – claims it can stop child pornography on the internet with CopyRouter, the new tool it is pitching (PDF) to ISPs and law enforcement agencies in the United States.

Brilliant Digital says CopyRouter sits in between an ISP’s subscribers and their internet connection, monitoring all data that passes through for illegal files defined by a hash list provided by law enforcement, copyright holders, or subscribers’ own submissions. CopyRouter uses deep packet inspection to peek inside the contents of connections, and Brilliant Digital says it can use this to monitor e-mail attachments, HTTP downloads, and peer-to-peer protocols like Gnutella or FastTrack.

When CopyRouter detects someone trying to download child pornography, it intercepts the connection and replaces the data in transit with an alternate file – presumably one provided by law enforcement. A PowerPoint presentation (PDF), given to a number of groups including AOL, the administration of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), portrays simulated examples where CopyRouter replaced a blacklisted file with a warning from law enforcement – denying the downloader the material he or she originally requested and adding the attempt, sans any information on who requested what, to a log file.

More importantly, Brilliant Digital claims CopyRouter is able to beat countermeasures. Connection handshakes that negotiate things like compression or encryption – common techniques that are sometimes used to fool deep packet inspection – are silently manipulated so that connection is actually read as plain text, unbeknownst to either party.

“We have been working on it for some time,” says Brilliant Digital’s Michael Speck, commercial manager for the company’s law enforcement products, in an interview with MSNBC. “We've been in negotiations with ISPs and law enforcement agencies and content owners.”

Before the company renamed itself to Brilliant Digital, it developed and led a variety of anti-piracy initiatives under the name Altnet; the hash-based filtering system it devised in CopyRouter appears to be the spiritual successor to a similar technology it pitched to music organizations in 2006.

Further back, the company published a controversial add-on packaged with file-sharing client KaZaA, of which some eventually labeled as spyware.

Both the anti-piracy tech and CopyRouter include numerous references to a “Global File Registry,” which Brilliant Digital intends to use as a private clearinghouse for hashcodes of contraband data. GlobalFileRegistry.com includes advertising text targeted at both music organizations such as the RIAA and law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.

Despite this, Brilliant Digital has yet to bring any law enforcement agencies on board. Questions pertaining to CopyRouter’s legal viability abound, and thus far both ISPs and the government are keeping their distance.

“We have not pressured anyone to use this technology,” said Cuomo spokesman Matthew Glazer. “We have nothing to do with this technology.”

Anonymous officials at AOL confirmed Glazer’s statements, telling MSNBC that AOL was indeed not pressured by Cuomo’s office to implement Brilliant Digital’s technology. Instead, they said, AOL checks e-mail attachments for child pornography with its own hash-based system, using data gathered from subscriber complaints and internal investigations. It is unclear as to whether or not AOL forwards the results to law enforcement.

“We'd be grateful for any assistance in getting this to the relevant ISPs and law enforcement agencies, and making any adjustments necessary,” says Speck. “It was made very clear that, for this to be a viable law enforcement tool, this would have to operate within the legislative framework within the country.”

One of the largest legal hurdles revolves around who compiles the hashlist. If the list is privately maintained, then ISPs have more freedom to report CopyRouter’s findings to the authorities, because its monitoring can be worked into subscriber agreements. If the government steps in at that stage, it could run afoul of U.S. communications and privacy laws, as well as the Constitution.

Many of those hurdles are likely to be overcome, however, by the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, which recently passed both the House and Senate. One of the bill’s provisions allows the non-profit NCMEC to hand out distribute its hash database of child pornography to ISPs, who can then plug the list into programs CopyRouter or other systems. The bill would also hold ISPs accountable, to the tune of $300,000, for each time they fail to report an infraction.

A previous child pornography initiative, also authored by Cuomo’s office, saw the United States’ top ISPs curtailing access to Usenet, after investigations found that a small subset of newsgroups offered child pornography available for download. When ISPs failed to act on information that they were storing those images – each Usenet server stores its own copy of all the newsgroups it carries – Cuomo’s office threatened them with legal action.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is BULLS#%!
By tastyratz on 10/17/2008 8:24:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Connection handshakes that negotiate things like compression or encryption – common techniques that are sometimes used to fool deep packet inspection – are silently manipulated so that connection is actually read as plain text, unbeknownst to either party.


Let me get this straight.
They circumvent ssl... OUR data encryption and protection system - and look anyways???

What a complete invasion of privacy!!!!! RealDVD gets slammed because of CSS.... What about OUR encryption and right to privacy?

And what about our security? This presents a HUGE security vulnerability for everyone. Can you imagine if someone cracked this and gained access to a method to intercept all ISP data as plain text?

Nobody is going to want to fight this because its hiding under the guise of child porn and nobody wants THAT bad pr.... but look at real motive lets be honest. That's not their moneymaker have no illusion of nobility. This system is focused on copyright enforcement while wearing a suit made of kiddy porn (an ugly suit)

Has anyone gotten a comment from EFF on this yet??? I hope to GOD they go to court against these clowns.




RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By NicePants42 on 10/17/2008 8:57:15 AM , Rating: 5
Good thing you're here to tell us what has merit! For a second there I was worried that this might constitute an invasion of privacy and set a dangerous precedent, but thanks to you, I'm now certain that this software, which scans all of my traffic and is resistant to countermeasures, will never ever be used to scan for files other than child porn, like movies/software/music.

Since I have nothing to hide, there's no problem letting them look, right?


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By SeeManRun on 10/17/2008 9:18:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
But that is illegal so you have no right to privacy for doing that.

To be free you must have the opportunity to commit crime.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Xerstead on 10/17/2008 4:08:05 PM , Rating: 5
So I'm going to print my bank details on a t-shirt and walk around town.
Good Idea? I think not.
If this is used anyone entering account names, passwords, bank details etc. will have them intercepted by a third party in plain text. Not somthing I'd be too keen on.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tastyratz on 10/17/2008 9:30:23 AM , Rating: 5
Tell corporations that, or hospitals that when they are told their sensitive information traveling through an encrypted vpn between sites is blown wide open for the government to read. Do you really think they have no right to privacy between those 2 points? Maybe they should communicate through the daily newspaper instead.

This does NOT only intercept illegal traffic which would be impossible to do at that point in the stream. This intercepts ALL traffic and then determines if they "approve" what you can read. This is a complete invasion of privacy.

Fitcamaro: What would your thoughts be if the government removed the need entirely for warrants to search your home? Would you be comfortable if your house was regularly inspected by police just in case your one of the bad guys? Or is it ok that they do that because someday somebody is going to commit a crime somewhere?

This is like the great firewall of China. This is Orwellian.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By therealnickdanger on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 9:50:23 AM , Rating: 5
No. It is like if there were a cop at every intersection, watching every move you make. Doesn't that sound like a relaxing drive to work?


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:13:09 AM , Rating: 5
You know there is place where you would be well taken care of, and watched over all day every day. They have nice officers to make sure you stay "safe", and they feed you at regular intervals. It's called prison. Bet that sounds good too.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:17:57 AM , Rating: 3
You're kidding. Sarcasm? What might that word mean? Oh wait, that right...it was what I used in the post above. Guess you missed it along with the point.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tastyratz on 10/17/2008 10:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
I think of it more like manditorily assigning everyone a cop to sit in the passenger seat with every person in america whenever they drive.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tmouse on 10/17/2008 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually its like a police officer in every home watching everything you do to see if ANYTHING you do violates any laws. How does that make you feel? I'm not defending child porn but this is open season for unauthorized surveillance, who watches the watchers? It’s the oldest trick in the book find something that’s not defendable and come up with a method that can give one a huge amount of power to abuse, no one will stop you from implementing it.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tastyratz on 10/17/2008 9:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me what you define as public and private domain then?

Private might be within the hospital - but as soon as it leaves their walls its public. They don't use a separate unconnected web with their own isolated routers and wiring. It's all connected.

Tell me how that traffic doesn't count... but my credit card number on my amazon.com order deserves to potentially be logged in plain text for human review if it partially matches a hash somewhere someplace?

Can you truly be so naive to think this entire ruse of a kiddy porn sting would not be abused to censor and monitor the American people?
But hey why worry about it... not like any government has ever stopped traffic with the word Tibet in it.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By omnicronx on 10/17/2008 11:04:39 AM , Rating: 5
FT just because something is accessible the internet, does not make it public domain, I don't know why on earth you would think that. Circumventing security regardless of the reason is illegal, whether it be by, me, you or your ISP.

I just find it funny that you were the number one proponent of sending that kid off to jail for 'hacking' palins email account, yet you come out now and say everything on the net is public domain.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Ryanman on 10/17/2008 11:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
‘(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
‘(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
‘(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
‘(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in sections (a) and (b).

Yeah.... we'll see how long this lasts. They aren't REQUIRING the ISP's to investigate and install spyware, but it's 150k if they ignore a report of anything like TALKING about Child Pornography.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Lifted on 10/17/2008 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 4
Dubya? Is that you?


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By foolsgambit11 on 10/17/2008 2:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, his argument has a legal precedent in wiretapping. Of course, they require a warrant for the government to go in and tap a phone. But that wasn't always the case. Between 1928 and 1967, a warrant wasn't needed.

Additionally, the only 'punishment' for violating that 'no warrant' thing is usually just that the evidence can't be used in court. So if it were done solely to prevent the offense from happening, while it would still be illegal, the government would pretty much get away with it.

However, I think encrypted communications fall under a different legal structure than regular wire taps. And the idea that all traffic could be intercepted would severely limit the trustworthiness of e-business transactions. I mean, imagine your web browser, upon first installation, gives you a nice info bubble the first time you go to an encrypted page. It says:

"Did you notice? This key symbol indicates you are on an encrypted page. This does little to protect your privacy, but it makes some people feel good."

Not only that, but it's easy to defeat this system. Encrypt files. Send them. Send the key separately. If you send the key after receipt is confirmed, then there's no way an intermediary could prevent delivery based on positive knowledge of the contents (without breaking encryption, but there's not enough computing power in the world to develop an effective scheme for decrypting all traffic on the fly). This system could stop 'casual' kiddie porn traffickers (and other illegal content), but it won't stop dedicated traffickers. It would only be a matter of time before a simple program interface was developed to implement the system transparently to the user.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tmouse on 10/17/2008 2:35:27 PM , Rating: 3
Are you really saying you think the government should not need a warrant to tap your calls??? This is clearly a violation of privacy and some form of probable cause should HAVE to be presented to allow it. Just the "ability" to do something is NOT and NEVER should be probable cause.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By foolsgambit11 on 10/17/2008 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot about the 9th Amendment.
quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Combine that with the 10th Amendment (which gives all powers not expressly granted to the federal government to the states, or to the people), and you have one of the bases the Supreme Court has operated on in the last 50 years (affectionately known as 'penumbras' and 'emanations', but also possibly construed as protecting even those rights not expressly protected by the Constitution). (Another major basis is the extension of the interstate commerce clause into all things having to do with money - i.e. everything - which partially negates the 'reserved rights' argument)

Of course, I agree that the precise limits of government's Constitutional authority are gray, and are something reasonable people can certainly disagree about. Where private ends and public begins is certainly not a bright line. But I also think that, where there is doubt, it is better to err on the side of caution. I interpret that as reserving the greatest amount of private space, to protect people from overreaching, possibly tyrannical government. I think you interpret the same maxim as meaning make sure the government has the tools to keep people safe. Both viewpoints have merits.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/18/2008 9:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you have one of the bases the Supreme Court has operated on in the last 50 years


If by that you mean the Supreme Court has taken away state rights then you're correct.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By foolsgambit11 on 10/18/2008 1:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yes and no. In many of those cases, the Supreme Court would say the state's never had the rights in the first case (see Roe v. Wade, for example). States don't have the right to take natural rights away from people. Whether you agree that abortion is within the right to privacy is debatable, I'll admit, but given that people have a right to privacy, individual states have no right to legislate away that right.

Also, on the issue of the extension of the interstate commerce clause, you could frame the 'expansion' of federal powers in that arena as an assertion of inherent powers that the federal government simply chose not to use for the first 200 years of its history. It's within feasible interpretation of the Constitution to allow all of the powers the federal government has now. Modern Supreme Courts have simply used some especially broad interpretations of some Constitutional clauses.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By jtesoro on 10/17/2008 9:41:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Besides you have no right to privacy in a PUBLIC domain like the internet.

So bank account balances can't be private since people use the internet to access it? How about credit card numbers used to buy something off Amazon?


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tastyratz on 10/17/2008 10:11:55 AM , Rating: 3
Oh ok. So its only an invasion of privacy to you if its invasive and inconvenient. If its fully transparent there's nothing wrong with it...

This is EXACTLY the same as the government going through your laptop and ipod to check for illegal files at the border - the only difference is you don't have to wait its all done live while you wait.
Would you have a problem if the government developed some sort of way to wirelessly scan your laptop and ipod at the border ?


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. Your personal and private information is your property. Just because they say they aren't interested in it, doesn't mean they have the right to look through it for the "bad" stuff.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
Your windows analogy isn't completely accurate. Because, you can always close the blinds or curtains on your windows. This technology would be more like a machine that allows law enforcement to look through the walls of your home without your knowledge. They would tell you they are just making sure people aren't commiting terrible crimes like rape or murder. Now, wouldn't it be worth it to let them look into your home anytime they want, if it would mean we could save those potential lost lives? My answer is no. But what scares me is that plenty of people these days would answer yes.

And, I understand that these are your views on the subject, and you are certainly entitled to them the same as I am to mine. I don't mean anything I say to be a personal attack. I simply wanted to debate my side of this issue. I have done that, and I am now moving on.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By EntreHoras on 10/17/2008 11:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry FIT, but even if you are in a public place in your car, the police needs a warrant in order to search your vehicle. This thing is the equivalent of searching every car all the time.

Remember: First they search for kiddie porn, then illegal music, later embarrassing secrets, but at the end they'll say that writing against the government is punishable. Maybe for you this is far fetched, but believe me: is not.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By MamiyaOtaru on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Cogman on 10/17/2008 10:23:06 AM , Rating: 3
Your some kind of idiot aren't you?

This system DOES scan every email sent, every blog posted, every file downloaded, everything transmitted by you to the internet. It assumes that encryption only means you are trying to break it so it bypasses that so it can scan everything you have encrypted and sent.

You can't say "Oh, this file right here is going to be child porn, so ill look at that, but that encrypted thing isn't child porn so I won't look at that" You HAVE to look at every file to see if they are child porn or not.

You give the rather stupid argument that if it is inconvenient then it is an invasion. So if someone makes a device that can read minds remotely, that's not so inconvenient so it should be put on every street corner. And really, someone looking through your home window to check up on you really isn't that inconvenient so they should be allowed to do that. And I don't see why you would think a quick scan of your iPod for illegal music is inconvenient because it only takes a second, they could do that right where they xray everything, That would make it very convenient.

Your essentially saying that we have no right to privacy, and the is baloney. If you get your records straight that was one of the founding principles of why we left the UK. If you give the government an inch, they will walk all over you, in any aspect.

Here's a hypothetical situation that is completely possible with this new system. Lets say the government finds a new way to catch terrorist. They find using some Bassyn algorithm they can predict if someone has terrorist intents. For example, saying the words bomb, kill, and death would give you a high terrorist flag. So with this wonderful new system they keep track of how many times someone says those words. One day you get a "knock" (someone breaking down the door) on your door. Guess what, you used to many terrorist words, so you get to go to Guantanamo while they search all your stuff to make sure you are a terrorist...

And everyone hates terrorists right! How on earth is this any different from the kiddy porn scanner? Lets say you transfer a file that matches the heuristics of a kiddy porn file (it isn't often but it DOES happen. I know of a couple false positives given by AV) guess who is going to be knocking on your door tomorrow to go through all your stuff to try and find kiddy porn while you spend the night in jail. Yeay.

Do yourself a favor, go check out 1984 by George Orwell and read about big brother. If that sounds like the universe you want to live in, then go move to china.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Cogman on 10/17/2008 11:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
And I didn't say that they check words for the kiddie porn now did I. However it would EASILY allow them to, almost like turning on a light simple.

What I said was if your file heuristics match that of a known kiddie porn file you would get a knock on the door. That is completely possible.

But apparently you really didn't read my post.

Just a thought for you, Who defines whats inconvenient? I find it inconvenient that my packets would be delayed for the time period needed to scan them.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By tmouse on 10/17/2008 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Knock, Knock, Knock

Mr "x" aka "FITCamaro " this is the FBI we have a few questions for you about your preoccupation with kiddie porn.

But really you can put ANYTHING into the filter so the possibilities for abuse are HUGE. I have a lot of friends and some family in law enforcement and quite frankly I would not trust several of them with this kind of potential for abuse. Unfortunately you cannot go wrong for over estimating the chances that if something can be abused it will.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By croc on 10/17/2008 7:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I think that I have a right to privacy over an SSL link to my bank, to a purchase site for internet purchases, for my VPN connetions to work, etc. I also feel that I have the right to privacy to download porn if I so choose.

We in Australia have already given up too many of our privacy rights already. Granted, we have no constitutional guarantees to these rights...

Note that this 'copyrouter' is an Australian made device, and no ISP here is willing to use it, hence the big push to sell it in the US...

You Yanks need to get rid of more of your right-wing nutjobs and replace tham with some right-wing constitionnal defenders...


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By cornelius785 on 10/17/2008 9:27:33 AM , Rating: 3
If you read the little 'white paper' thing, the 'encryption cracking' only applies to gnutella stuff, a simple update to gnutella could make their device just as functional as an electric brick. At first I was thinking SSL, VPN stuff, and such, but it doesn't look like the case. If they could successfully pull off a man-in-the-middle attack on SSL, the whole computer security/internet security/crypyanalysts would be talking about it. Just think about how much sensitive web traffic goes over https.

I also find it interesting that there are no issues in breaking encryption used by the common internet user, but people will throw fits and lawsuits if their encryption scheme has a proposal for getting it cracked or being cracked.

The only thing I can think of that will come of this kind of crap and deep packet inspection is just more and more encryption use. There just isn't enough money for them to buy/build equipment that break thousands of data packets in real time encrypted with a modern (or even DES) encrytion algorithm.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By SeanMI on 10/17/2008 10:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they aren't "cracking" SSL. Unless using a brute force attack on every SSL connection made, they would need to have the private key of every website hosting SSL. The private key is NEVER (unless you've got a STUPID security admin) sent over the wire so they would need physical access to the box.

If there's a company out there willing to do that, stop doing business with them NOW.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Solandri on 10/18/2008 12:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
An ISP could do a man-in-the-middle attack on SSL. When you try to open an SSL connection to the bank, the ISP makes the SSL connection between itself and the bank, opens an SSL connection between you and the ISP, and relays the info (in plaintext) between the two.

SSL certificate verification is supposed to prevent this by popping up a message saying "the SSL certificate does not match the site", but people seem to ignore those messages. And the ISP might be able to spoof it anyway by re-routing its DNS so the bank's IP address routes to one of its servers instead of the actual bank.


RE: This is BULLS#%!
By Screwballl on 10/18/2008 11:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
The only LEGAL and MORAL use for this would be for sex predators and offenders or others convicted of some crime relating to internet security.
Having a custom DNS entry on the PC itself and at the ISP level would ensure there is no bypass and rules can be customized per DNS server.

Otherwise for the general public, I say screw you! I will not allow my privacy to be breached just so they can catch 5 kiddie porn peddlers and 200,000 music/movie sharers.


Going commie...
By Hieyeck on 10/17/2008 8:19:42 AM , Rating: 3
... one freedom at a time.




RE: Going commie...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Going commie...
By LS8 on 10/17/2008 8:35:26 AM , Rating: 3
Please tell me you are not that naive.


RE: Going commie...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Going commie...
By Lord 666 on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Going commie...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Going commie...
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:09:28 AM , Rating: 5
Here is where your opinion differs drastically from mine, and I think many others here. You think that there aren't people in our government with "malicious intent".

I don't care how noble the cause may seem on the surface. If it costs my civil liberties on any level, then I am against it. They can promise all day that they would never use this technology to keep tabs on everything I do, everyone I talk to, and every account I access. But, the only way to make sure they won't do that, is to make sure they can't do that.

That may sound like some goofy conspiracy theory. But the fact is that our government is fluid. The person in a position today may have an agenda that is completely the opposite of the person holding that position in a year, or four years. But once this technology is in place, the power is available and waiting on someone willing to abuse it. It is just a matter of time at that point.


RE: Going commie...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Going commie...
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
The people in Congress are who I was referring to. All it takes is a few politicians with an agenda to turn this technology into a weapon against our personal freedoms.


RE: Going commie...
By foolsgambit11 on 10/17/2008 3:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
I used to do this kind of stuff (spying on communications) for the DoD. I can concur that, at the lowest levels, people generally follow the rules. But at the same time, when the rules change - and we don't always know in the general population when that happens (see current NSA debacle) - most people just adapt to the new rules. A few people stand on principle and refuse to listen in on Americans having phone sex with other Americans, but most people get a kick out of the voyeurism of it.

So if you're afraid of the idiots at the top, you've got to be afraid of everyone down the line following along. Just look at Nazi Germany for a case in point.


RE: Going commie...
By DPigs on 10/20/2008 1:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just look at Nazi Germany for a case in point.


And there it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


RE: Going commie...
By JAB on 10/17/2008 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
You dont need bad intent. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler among other had the very best of intentions who needs a constitution when you know you are right. All this spying on Americans sounds more like the old Writ of assistance from good King George than even a parody of American law. There is no shortage of laws already in effect if the true intent to fight porn. I am sure big money content has made their choice known. Too bad us working slobs cant get representation too.


RE: Going commie...
By InvertMe on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Going commie...
By nycromes on 10/17/2008 9:30:15 AM , Rating: 2
FITCamaro, I totally agree with your points here, but I will bring up other concerns.

For example: EMRs (Electronic Medical Records) are required to adhere to certain privacy standards in the US, mostly through HIPPA regulations. This device would decrypt the information (even if it was in an SSL connection) and it would be viewable to anyone with access to this device. Imagine if your health information got out on to the web because this device had a security flaw. Even if you haven't signed up for this, doctors offices are connected to hospitals records via ssl encryption and VPN tunnels. This would circumvent that protection.

Or, we can look at Banking.... what if your bank account, credit card numbers, etc go loose because of this device. Do you want a private citizen working for Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, etc having access to this information? I certainly don't.

I am all for trying to eradicate kiddie porn, but I don't think this is the solution we are looking for. It opens/views all data across the connection, and it could store whatever its told to store in a log, including the information listed above.


RE: Going commie...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Going commie...
By myhipsi on 10/17/2008 11:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am all for trying to eradicate kiddie porn


That's just it, you can't. You ever here of the quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Well it's people like FITCamero who help pave that road, while thinking they're rightous in doing so.

nycromes, your arguments against these spying methods make sense, but when you talk of "eradication", you fail to understand that in a free society, you can't eradicate crime. We could virtually eliminate child porn, drugs, guns, piracy, and all crime for that matter, it's just we'd have no more freedom. You see people like FIT just won't figure that out. You can't have it both ways, freedom and safety from all the "baddies" are mutually exclusive. Benjamin Franklin was right when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As abhorant as child abuse, murder, and rape among other things are, they will happen in a free society. The best thing you can do is study the reasons for this kind of behaviour and tackle the source of the problem. Arresting and punishing the people who commit these crimes is also necessary, don't get me wrong. But treating everybody as guilty until proven innocent is contrary to the principles of freedom.

Personally, I'd rather live in a free world where terrible things happen sometimes vs. living in a world wrapped in a bubble of safety where your every move is tracked and traced "for your own good".

Sorry for the long rant, nycromes. It was mostly directed at people like FITCamero, who in their infinite wisdom, won't be happy until there's no freedom left. He would have most certainly been a "brown shirt" if he'd lived in Germany during Hitlers reign. I'm all for a healthy balance of law enforcement and freedom, but when innocent peoples activities are monitored to check for illegal activity, this destroys the essence of freedom.


RE: Going commie...
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Going commie...
By dever on 10/17/2008 1:45:21 PM , Rating: 4
FIT, from some of your past posts, I've somehow believed that you were wary of the power of government and sympathetic the the most important of human rights, Liberty. Apparently, I'm mistaken, or your recent comments seem to be inconsistent, or maybe that idiot who spoofed your username has finally taken it over.

There's one really important concept to remember, government is the only institution that can legally use force to carry out it's will. Individuals cannot. The American system was revolutionary because it was setup to enforce individual freedoms.

Enumerating the Bill of Rights was controversial, not because it gave people more liberty, but because the constitution already restricted government from doing anything that wasn't specifically enumerated. By enumerating individual rights, instead of government rights, there was the danger (now obvious today) that these would be seen as the only rights individuals possessed, instead of the implicit universal rights established by the constitution.

I believe it is eternally important to be wary of any increase of government power. As many other posters have mentioned, any power is corruptible. And power given to government with the implicit backing of force and universal compliance is especially attractive for corruption.

And corruption is just one problem... more frequently, the problem is unintended consequences. The unintended consequences seem obvious to most everyone here except you.


RE: Going commie...
By foolsgambit11 on 10/17/2008 3:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your examples are (with the exception of airline inspections) of spot monitoring, not 100% monitoring. Spot checks to ensure compliance are certainly different than 100% monitoring. It would be the difference between random spot checks to ensure North Korea isn't reinstating its nuclear program, compared with an inspector every few feet in the country, all the time. One is obviously more invasive than the other.

It should be government's job to do the best it can in the least invasive manner possible. Where each person draws that line is is different. But it seems most here would draw the line more conservatively than you would. That doesn't mean you are wrong (that would be an ad populum fallacy), but it does mean you'll have a hard slog trying to convince us all your way will produce the greatest good for the greatest number (or whatever decision rule you may suggest).


whats the main goal?
By alpensiedler on 10/17/2008 8:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
i kind of feel like they threw in the "we're trying to stop child porn" argument so that people would lose sight of the fact they the are checking for other stuff (pirated entertainment). i guess they are hoping people won't get pissed off about because it would make those people seem pro child porn. anyway, i think this is really just a guise to curb piracy.




RE: whats the main goal?
By therealnickdanger on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: whats the main goal?
By an0dize on 10/17/2008 8:27:31 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, everyone who is against the erosion of personal privacy is a pirate.


RE: whats the main goal?
By JWalk on 10/17/2008 10:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
This deserves a 5.


Easily bypassed?
By kingpotnoodle on 10/17/2008 9:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
Surely if you just scramble using an algorithm before you send it, then unscramble at the other end then you have changed the hash value and the data that the packet inspector looks at will seem like innocuous garbage... all you would need to do is then use some other separate method (i.e a text message) to pass the "unscrambling key" to the receiver?

Unless I'm wrong then this system would only catch the most under-prepared of file sharers... organized criminal gangs would quickly become immune...

Please point out to me how this is anything other than an excuse to spy on everyone? Even though those not doing anything illegal should have nothing to fear I think this is still a step too far into invasion of privacy.

I can see this becoming open to further abuse, for example by malicious software using someone's connection to download something illegal which matches the hash algorithm - in which case I'm sure a visit from the fuzz would be imminent. Plenty of people will download things unwittingly, but have a very hard time proving this, perhaps the first they know about it will be when they get arrested!




RE: Easily bypassed?
By JonB on 10/17/2008 9:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
Only criminals encrypt their data, right?

8rTyuss r34zzq sff.? [98sud72jhbc haha


RE: Easily bypassed?
By cornelius785 on 10/17/2008 9:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that this system an be made worthless with ease. The tools readily available. Two people can easily swap public keys in a public-key encryption algorithm (like RSA, DSA, etc.). Use the public-key encryption algorithm to exchange the key used for transport encryption and away they go. This is nothing new at all, RSA has been around since the late 70's. I'd like to see somebody break RSA with 2048 bit primes or AES256 in real time.


Seriously
By HDBanger on 10/17/2008 10:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really think the Govt. gives a rats ass about you or your kids? They are the worst offenders of child abuse in history. Statistics show your child is 5x more likely to be sexually or otherwise abused in the care of CPS, than anywhere else! Then you have the top companies in the country running child sex slave rings, getting caught, and NOTHING happening to them. This is not for your childs safety. And Fitcamaro, you are the reason this country is going down the tubes, people like you, that think they have the right to monitor everyone else, in the name of whatever. Enjoy your Orwellian society fool, YOU deserve it.

http://digg.com/world_news/DynCorp_Haliburton_Sex_...




RE: Seriously
By InvertMe on 10/17/2008 11:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
No I am pretty sure it's liberals who don't hold anyone accountable for their actions or expect people to work for their slot in society is why this country is going down the tubes.


RE: Seriously
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously
By helms on 10/17/2008 5:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
FITCamaro I have the perfect country for you, it's both totalitarian and capitalist, exactly how you want it. It's called China. By all means move there.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-what...
I guess you must have sex in public places all the time to not even care about private conversations with your girlfriend/wife being monitored.


slippery slope
By the goat on 10/17/2008 8:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
Child porn is only the beginning. This technology will be expanded in short order to include anything the government (at the time) wants to control.

Isn't the fact that this system breaks SSL encryption mean it violates the DMCA? Probably not because they are not breaking the encryption in order to violate copyright.

Thankfully programmers will quickly invent new encryption systems that are not broken as easily as SSL.




RE: slippery slope
By Bateluer on 10/17/2008 9:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. It won't end with just kiddie porn. Anything that the government wants to filter will eventually be included, and anything that Big Content wants included. I wonder how long it'll be before any political parties other than the incumbent get filtered out?

Censorship is a bad thing people, no matter what guise it hides under.


RE: slippery slope
By FITCamaro on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: slippery slope
By Bateluer on 10/17/2008 9:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that they are the one's who decide what is legal and what is not. They will attempt to block all P2P traffic, including perfectly legal information like Linux distros. It could also be used to block content that artists have made freely available because they won't bow to the **AA demands.

As others have pointed out, they'll also have access to little things like bank account numbers, credit card numbers, social security numbers, medical records, etc.

This heavy handed censorship isn't the solution and it is a gross violation of people's freedoms and right to privacy. Imagine what will happen when the government decides they don't want citizens looking up information on the Libertarian party because they are subversive, or reading up on FOSS software because it undermines 'traditional software', or publishing your own creative works because you are represented by a Big Content organization.

This system is NOT the solution.


Big Brother
By LS8 on 10/17/2008 8:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
This just seems like a way for them to justify spying on people to me.

Every time people of the world have lost privacy rights it has always been in the name of stopping crime. Forget all the people who have never DL'ed porn, let alone child porn - their rights go out the window to save the children.

Welcome to the 21st century! Time to start encrypting all your data transmissions!




RE: Big Brother
By InvertMe on 10/17/2008 11:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
I just naturally assume anything that I put on the internet is public domain. So stuff like this really doesn't bother me. Anything I have that needs or should stay private never goes into electronic format.


For Your Information
By ph0ed1n on 10/17/2008 9:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming that this technology can truly crack a user's encryption without the key (an assumption that I'm not ready to make), which I'm guessing that it would have to do to deal with the people who likely use such encryption when operating in the shady world of violating childrens' rights, this is another information gathering tool that can be abused against society with the potential to cause far more harm than even the horrors caused by child predators and the like.

And while we should ponder that, we may also want to consider this:

Is their next step, to protect our children, editing what that information says while it's in transit?




RE: For Your Information
By nycromes on 10/17/2008 9:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I can see.... the description of how it "breaks" encryption is only the encryption on a connection (ex: ssl). It pretends to be the server to the user and the user to the server thereby decrypting the data as it passes through and then passing along encrypted data to the receiver. This has nothing to do with a file that was encrypted before sending.


Easily Bypassed
By nycromes on 10/17/2008 9:17:42 AM , Rating: 4
Unless I missed something while reading this... this amounts to nothing more than a man in the middle attack. The ISP will intercept outgoing connections and pretend to be the server (to the internet user) and the user (to the internet server). This can be done in lots of ways, and its also one of the most effective ways of stealing information in digital form.

The kiddie porn sickos will just encrypt files before they are sent and use other means to convey the encryption key(ie: phone, meeting place, some random website, etc). This would totally bypass this type of monitoring because the encryption is not negotiated by the browser. Then all thats left is an ISP that will be able to see legitimate things like banking transactions and other sensitive information in plain text instead of it being encrypted. Personally, I don't trust the employees at an ISP enough to want that information to go out to them as plain text.

This isn't just about kiddie porn, if it were, it would have 100% of non kiddie porn viewers support. But, this has farther reaching implications on every user of the internet.

I have never really understood the idea that ISPs need to monitor the traffic of their customers. I purchase the access to the internet from them... just the same as I purchase any other product. If I buy a car/truck from Ford, they aren't required to monitor how I use their product. Personally, I think it all should be illegal.




Nobody is secure anymore.
By greylica on 10/17/2008 11:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
OMG. Cisco and Sandvine are seeking the number of the beast...
Of course they don´t want to fight child pornography, if you arrest those persons, it will diminish, as long as criminals have fear to be arrested. But there are a bunch of other manners to share what they want.
The problem here is another, the problem here is spionage under the bless of law.
After COMCAST CORRUPTS ADMIT TRAFFIC SHAPE IS BEING USED TO SPY PACKETS, these clowns are trying to expand the eye of sight the ISPs have over us all.
I am not a criminal, nor a lawyer, but the censorship is coming to Internet at fast paces never seem before.
I can imagine Microsoft buying an big ISP and blocking Linuxers to update their systems in order to avoid competition, HP blocking Dell, Cisco blocking Sandvine, no more secure enterprise VPNS, and no more secure commmunications over Internet.

Astalavista Internet, we are sold like pigs.

CISCO, SANDVINE, OTHERS AND CORRUPTS FROM COMCAST GIVE THE KILLSWITCH IDEA TO INTERNET CORRUPTS.
THEY STARTED THE COUNTDOWN TO KILL INT3RN3T.




RE: Nobody is secure anymore.
By theslug on 10/17/2008 12:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can imagine Microsoft buying an big ISP and blocking Linuxers to update their systems in order to avoid competition, HP blocking Dell, Cisco blocking Sandvine, no more secure enterprise VPNS, and no more secure commmunications over Internet.


Nope. You're talking about network neutrality here. Companies like those, including Microsoft, are on our side when it comes to that. The people that oppose it are the telecoms.


This is Orwellian all the way
By benx009 on 10/17/2008 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
First the U.K., and now Austrialia. Orwell's 1984 is becoming more and more of our reality with each passing day...




By Odysseus145 on 10/17/2008 2:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
Big Brother is watching...


FITcamaro
By jadeskye on 10/21/2008 4:33:53 PM , Rating: 3
i'd like to aknowledge FITcamaro for his persistance. i don't agree with what he has to say here but getting a record breaking 18 -1's in one topic has to be worthy of something lol!




It can circumvent encryption?
By Byte on 10/17/2008 9:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
Amazing!




Rights
By mquesnell on 10/17/2008 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
There seems to be a little confusion in some of the previous comments on exactly what "rights" means. One example was the comment that you don't have any right of privacy in a public domain. That is actually incorrect. You always have the same rights, it just depends on if you have a reasonable expectation they apply at any given time. Privacy is actually based on expectations, not public/non-public. If you are in public area but the circumstances dictate a reasonable expectation of privacy then that is what counts. The police can't just frisk you because you are in the public. I think most people would consider enabling encryption on an internet connection as reasonably expecting privacy.

And everyone has the same rights - whether your a criminal or a saint your rights are the same. In order for the government to intercept the text of your internet communications they would need a warrant - header info is a different story but the text is considered private. It's as if they were reading the address on the outside of a letter versus opening it and reading what's inside. It would be up to the courts to determine if deliberately breaking encryption and comparing your text to a hash constituted an invasion of privacy and/or "reading" your text.

Also, in case someone brings up the "there is no privacy right in the Constitution" argument I would like to point out the 9th ammendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that even though it isn't specifically listed as a right it is still protected.




The Great Wall of Australia
By habbakuk on 10/18/2008 2:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just what difference does this measure leave between australia and china.




By phxfreddy on 10/18/2008 9:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
......I have done. These politicians have vivid imaginations. I browse all around the internet. No children in porn have I ever seen.

Makes a person think its a canard for the purpose of being able to spy on everyone. Lord only knows the worse crime is not paying your taxes. You get more time for tax evasion than you do murder in many cases.




By STEVENSEAGALXXVI on 10/19/2008 2:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
From the article:

quote:
Connection handshakes that negotiate things like compression or encryption – common techniques that are sometimes used to fool deep packet inspection – are silently manipulated so that connection is actually read as plain text, unbeknownst to either party.


I would love to see them try to manipulate an RSA exchange. It just can't currently be done (problem with factoring extremely large prime numbers and all) and if they can, they could make much, much more money doing other things (i.e. pretty much destroying the whole encrypted aspect of the internet).

Remember, if the key generation technique is not crackable, you are safe, no matter how unsafe the communication medium (thanks to Diffie-Hellman). In other words, it doesn't matter that this dumb company is tapped directly into your line or not, if you are using a decent exchange algorithm like RSA.




Overall good news
By Lord 666 on 10/17/08, Rating: 0
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




15 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki