FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
-
Look at this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1
Great news!.... right? ...or....... think about this!
Since your ISP also holds all your emails on their servers, before they get delivered to your computer, we might have to be very careful about what we send to each other.Will this type of fear mongering, that's being used to change laws, be coming to your country shortly?
With all the linkages of IT, to other IT systems it may not be to long, before you might find yourself on a no fly list perhaps due to an inappropriate posting to a thread titled: Do we have a joke Thread goin here?
or am I just being......Paranoid?
-
Itd be a ballsy government who brings in that piece of legislation.
Having said that, more ludicrous laws have been passed (the australian list of banned websites, for example.)
-
Currently, only my emails are "in the cloud". But what will happen, if we depend in future on big server farms, where our photos ans files are stored, our applications run etc. Such a decision over our heads can be very dangerous.
But on the other hand, the more data the FBI has access to, the bigger the blame when something bad happens and FBI couldn't prevent it. I think it is not necessary to give them more sensible data, but rather to better evaluate the data that they have without breaking privacy laws.
-
I expect a few pages of replies stating that if you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide. For those anti-privacy sympathizers, I say think hard about it. If a government should ever fall into the wrong hands and become corrupt and tyrannical, then it's often doing the right thing that becomes illegal and thus it's better not to set the precedent at all.
-
The 'Intelligence Services' can't do joined up thinking with the data they have managed to glean at the moment - see the exploding underpants on a plane fiasco - they knew of him, Yemen etc and still let him keep a valid visa and fly to the US etc etc !
If they have the entire Internet traffic records they'll have so much data they'll end up with nothing useful at all - they'll be drowning in it... They need to target what they want, then get it - not just get everything and put it into filing cabinet - they need to use 'intelligence' with it original meaning. Simply collecting data is useless if you don't make it into useful information and then use that purposefully... What's happening to freedom of speech and association ? Any free government [and by extension its arms such as intelligence and justice] are servants of the people, not their oppressors - there can be no justification in this type of action. They say they are to protect us from 'them' by being worse than 'them' - that's a bad deal - who gave them the right to behave like this - certainly not their 'victims' who'll turn out to be us - and not the few real 'baddies', who it seems they can't catch whatever freedoms we are tricked into giving up...
Who with protect us from our protectors ?
-
Very well said TIG!
-
@tig said:
If they have the entire Internet traffic records they'll have so much data they'll end up with nothing useful at all - they'll be drowning in it... They need to target what they want, then get it - not just get everything and put it into filing cabinet - they need to use 'intelligence' with it original meaning.
I wish that were true, but you and I, (having both donated a few ruby scripts), know that writing an algorithm that looks for key words and phrases can search through a lot of data in an instant, particularly since Intel is already producing a 48 core I7
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=825
Who do think will be allowed to buy that kind of power computing first? -
FBI doesn't monitor our houses 24/7, so why do they need to monitor our web activity?
If they want to prevent crimes they should just see into the person, a good people-person can get anything out of anyone.
-
TIG, as tomot suggested, having large volumes of data and not being able to put together that information are 2 entirely separate problems.
Off topic: tomot, the hardware used in server farms and supercomputers is completely different to that used in desktop computers. Id guess it'll be at least 10 years before the kind of chips you mention start making their way in to server farms and supercomputers.
-
My point wasn't that they couldn't get information out of this massive amount of data BUT that they can't get usable information out of the data they have already - at least not in a timely manner***... So if you give them more data then what they already had will become even less useful, not more useful. Give them all the data in the world and they can sift it to get information - but can they really use exponentially increasing data and potential information effectively ? If I tell you that the 'answer to life the universe and everything' is actually, really, truly out there on the net somewhere - perhaps in the patterns of one person's browsings - then you'll be hard pressed to find it - especially within a useful time frame !!!
If you know what you are looking for then you can eventually find it, but an algorithm will only do what it's told to - it has no 'intelligence' when looking at the data - it only assembles it into sets that might be useful as its programmer thought it might be... So if I write the word 'bomb' in this text a decent 'sniffer' would pick that, up but then that word is mentioned millions of times every hour of every day in many different [and almost all entirely innocent] contexts. If I type 'Hi my fellow terrorist, I have made a bomb and I will destroy the university labs tomorrow at noon...', then it'd be much easier found and identified as a probable threat - but what sort of stupid terrorist would write that ??? They'll either act alone or make up a simple codex of metaphors between themselves - agreed beforehand in a discreet verbal or paper format [as known and used for many years by the 'intelligence' operatives themselves] - this makes it all but impossible to spot - e.g. 'Fred, I have finished the book and will return it back to you one evening next week...' where 'Fred' is some code-key - pointing to particular interpretations of what I then to go on to say: 'finished the book' is then looked-up [or known to be] == 'made the bomb', 'return it' means 'blow it up', 'to you' - means the 'university labs (or just target)' and 'one evening' means 'noon', 'next week' means '[i:3g85pzn1]tomorrow[/i:3g85pzn1]' etc etc... Disinformation, where you say one thing and do another, has been widely used forever...
In fact you can simply encrypt messages in many ways that are not readily detectable, or then decryptable without sophisticated software.
You can simply hide messages inside images or other innocent looking files... see the attached jpeg images at the end of this paragraph - '1' is the original vanilla jpg, but the seemingly "identical" file '2' contains a hidden text message [it's a .txt file, but it could be any type of file or even multiple files!] - the images are even reported as being the same size ! to see this download both jpgs and open them - they both open and look identical and will open in your default jpg viewer app'. To access the secret message hidden inside the '2' jpg select its icon and right-click, choose 'open-with' and then browse to your usual zip/unzip application - let's assume it's 'ALzip' - [Please [i:3g85pzn1]don't[/i:3g85pzn1] change it to be the default app' to open jpgs ! Ensure that the box is NOT ticked in the dialog]; the jpg file will open with 'ALzip' and you can then see the hidden content,select the hidden file you'd like to have - extract the txt file and read its boring message, using Notepad.exe etc... Remember to erase the files with 'secure-delete' software to ensure security - they don't self-destruct [yet] !!!
I am not a terrorist, but it took me just 2 minutes on the net to find how to hide files like this [and also how to make even more securely hidden versions with headers stripped etc - but I'm keeping it simple for you]...
A terrorist who surfs for extremist web-sites or pages on how to make bombs is going to be easily caught - but to do that you just watch those sites for traffic and trace it back - that's much easier that watching absolutely everything in the hope of catching something - a terrorist with half a brain will know to guard against this easy pit fall anyway... so you'll only catch the real idiots...
OK, so we do need to catch stupid terrorists as well as the smart ones, but if 'they' have the 'nouse' to get that far then guarding themselves in their communications will be second-nature and straightforward ?
***However, although 'real-time' generation of useful information from raw data is awkward to achieve, it is still possible [even probable ?] that all of this Internet data the 'Feds' will have on all of us could be sifted through at their relative leisure, to then compile dossiers of information that might then be used to control, restrict or compromise any of us [who aren't actually terrorists] but who might simply disagree with the policies of the 'powers that be'... disagreeing with the government is not a crime [yet].
We are being 'protected' to the extent that we are to be 'controlled' - but we must remember that it is simply their job to protect us - not control us - getting all this extra data would only help protect themselves and those whom they perceive to be their masters - which is not us [but we are their true masters]...
-
my understanding of the problem was that they failed to turn existing information in to action rather than an inability to get usable information in the first place.
With regards to the quality of the information that would be made available via monitoring peoples browsing history, it would certainly not be the be all and end all, and its very unlikely youd ever catch someone planning to blow something up purely via going through their browsing history.
I do think it could be incredibly useful as an additional information though, as a persons browsing history can tell you a huge amount about what they're doing even if you dont explicitly know what it is they're looking at. You wouldnt have to be a genius to look at my browsing history and realise im pretty heavily involved with SCF.
Finally, a point about the OP, the link doesnt mention keeping any information other than which sites are visited, so how you concluded that
@unknownuser said:
your ISP also holds all your emails on their servers
i really dont know.
-
As a side note, im really just playing devils avocado. I think storing peoples browsing history is a very bad idea as i dont think it's acceptable to treat the majority as if they're criminals to catch criminals.
-
We are all now guilty until we prove ourselves innocent !
PS: did you try my hidden-text trick within a jpeg - it's petty neat ? ...but it's useless unless you are 'up to no good'?
-
BTW FBI is in The USA. So far one US respondent to this thread. We all know the quality of work we get from the FBI. It about equals that of the Army Corps of Engineers (who drowned New Orleans).
As a US citizen I just want to add from the Irish statesman:
John Philpot Curran in 1790: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
If we could spell it, we'd know who the indolent are.
-
well igoogle already has my browsing history and bookmarks!
but i actually find it very handy.i think the problem (danger) is that once a group or "task force" is formed for a certain purpose that they will carry out that purpose in ever expanding circles till they make themselves useful, after all they need to prove their existence, they can't just one day say, "you know, its been 5 years now and we just havn't found anything. i think you should just get rid of us.". its more likely "its been X years now and we havn't found anything, we need more power so we can dig deeper. you're tying our hands by leaving joe public privacy rights. take them away.".
once you start down a path, right or wrong, it seems to inherit a will of its own. drug along by believers and followers.
its kinda like "we can't find WMD unless you let us invade and start killing and torturing some info out of these people". -
I think, before becoming paranoid about Big Brother, one should read that article carefully. It suggests that internet providers retain non-content records of web sites visited (not e-mails), and those would be available only to law enforcement with the proper authorization (warrants). Similar to phone records.
-
Tig, tried the message in a picture thing although my zip program (7zip) didnt like it. Cool to know its possible though.
-
@remus said:
Tig, tried the message in a picture thing although my zip program (7zip) didnt like it. Cool to know its possible though.
???
-
If you read all of my earlier diatribe you'll see that I attached two seemingly identical images - they show a cartoon about 'Architects' - the second of them has a text message inside it - to see it download it to your desktop, and then use the open-with context-menu to open it with your usual zip/unzip application - the 'hidden file' should then be available to extract and be read - it was a simple example of how 'miscreants' can hide messages and other files inside seemingly innocent images and thereby evade detection, whatever the 'watchers' try...
-
Have a read of tig's big post, about halfway through the second paragraph.
Have you tried it with the uploaded images tig? im wondering if the extra info might have gotten stripped on upload...
edit: beaten to it.
Advertisement