Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

FBI adds to wiretap wish list. This is hard to believe!!!

Mar 14, 2004 12:51PM PST

.

Can they really do this?? Would the public stand for it?


"A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.

Legal experts said the 85-page filing includes language that could be interpreted as forcing companies to build back doors into everything from instant messaging and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) programs to Microsoft's Xbox Live game service. The introduction of new services that did not support a back door for police would be outlawed, and companies would be given 15 months to make sure that existing services comply."

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: All right then....
Aug 12, 2004 12:39PM PDT
"Actually I set you up with a method that is undetectable."

Undetectable only if the original can't be compared to it. Then the size difference is a giveaway as well as the color palate.

Simply shuffling the color map doesn't allow message embedding so there would be no reason for bouncing.

Yes, things can be hidden in executables but "easter eggs" isn't as good an example as a backdoor through a trojan horse.

Even there though signatures can be used while scanning the executable or the executable can be decompiled. Once decompiled the hidden "goodies" can be easily located. (want to decompile a flash movie? - http://www.sothink.com/flashdecompiler/ or a java class file? - http://kpdus.tripod.com/jad.html )

Until it becomes a real problem not much will be done EXCEPT in the rare cases where suspicious activies are being investigated and that is pretty much on a case by case basis. Once it becomes a problem expect to see both commercial and freeware scanning solutions.

The point being that extraneous info in any file can be extracted or used as criteria to bounce if that is what is wanted.

- Collapse -
Re: All right then....
Aug 12, 2004 12:58PM PDT
Once decompiled the hidden "goodies" can be easily located.

Perhaps you haven't heard of methods like those used by Hydan. It uses redundancy in the x386 instruction set to hide messages by substituting alternate machine language instructions in the compiled code. Even decompiling does not reveal the message, only the software algorithms used to hide the information to begin with. At any rate, for every method discovered, those who wish to hide messages will will create a new method. And the cycle will go on and on and .....

- Collapse -
Yep...
Aug 13, 2004 3:05AM PDT

which is pretty much what I said previously.

Where there is a will there is a way... Happy

- Collapse -
quick question about imagemagick
Aug 10, 2004 11:57AM PDT

What do you do with her once youve downloaded her? Ive downloaded it, unzipped it, but cant see how to get started playing with this new toy.

Thanks for the link, BTW.

- Collapse -
Quick Answer...
Aug 11, 2004 8:30AM PDT

Once you have downloaded it and extracted/installed it, you should see an INDEX.HTML file in the ImageMagick directory. Open it in your web browser and get ready to do a fair amount of reading. (concentrate on Command Line Programs, then FAQ then Image Formats. You can also open any of the html files in the WWW directory and read them directly for instructions and examples.

Hopefully you are conversant with the Command Line Interface (AKA Dos Prompt or DOS Window) because that is where the "magick" happens.

If you are more interested in just hiding messages or whole files than in manipulating and converting graphics you would be better off browsing this page:
http://www.jjtc.com/stegoarchive/stego/software.html

- Collapse -
Re: walkie-talkie services?!?!?
Aug 6, 2004 2:27AM PDT
How can you possible be voting for Big Brother?

Please point to where I said that. You do know better than to 'assume' don't you?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Can cell phones be tapped?
Aug 5, 2004 3:13AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Re: (NT) Can cell phones be tapped? Yes
Aug 5, 2004 4:17AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: FBI adds to wiretap wish list. This is hard to believe!
Aug 4, 2004 1:15PM PDT

Hi, Rosalie.

It's clearly unconstitutional -- but that doesn't matter a whit to Bushcroft Sad

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
BS Alert!
Aug 5, 2004 3:29AM PDT

What is proposed is to put broadband on an even footing with already existing telephony requirements regarding wiretap.

Any tap still needs to meet the same criteria as originally endorsed and APPROVED OVERWHELMINGLY by both parties.

It is no more unconstitutional than putting a tap on your landline with probable cause.

Now, a question.

This is no more or less odious than the allowed (for probable cause) but warrantless search of OJ Simpson's property and home which you STRONGLY SUPPORTED. Why the change of mind?

- Collapse -
Re: BS Alert!
Aug 5, 2004 3:40AM PDT

Hi, Ed.

It's not just about the tapping, it's about intentionally holding back technology to allow something that's no longer possible with newer technology. Sort of like the government banning automobiles because auto drivers would no loonger have to pay a special tax on buggy whips.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
The alert remains!
Aug 6, 2004 3:08AM PDT

There is no intent to "hold back technology" in this area any more than in landline telecom.

There is simply a requirement for a "backdoor" that can allow monitoring of specific conversations. EXACTLY what the FCC already requires of telephone companies and Western Union too for that matter.

This article in the NYT might help with your knee spasms Dave.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/technology/05phone.html

Already a "group has developed a specialty of being able to monitor Internet phone conversations. The companies offering the surveillance technology include Verisign and Fiducianet." and "new Internet telephone companies like Vonage would be able to satisfy their obligations by retaining the companies that offer surveillance technology."

Defense and defense measures are a legitimate function of government, where the social programs you tend to favor are not and never have been.

- Collapse -
Re: alert remains! -- Nice of you to warn in advance
Aug 6, 2004 3:31AM PDT

when your posts are BS, Ed. OTOH, it might save you time if you merely alerted to those that weren't! Wink

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
In other words you didn't bother reading...
Aug 7, 2004 4:43AM PDT

the post or the article linked to AGAIN!

Too busy or what?

I'll have to guess "or what" and that you understood you were wrong again and didn't know how to admit it and regroup.

- Collapse -
Re: This is hard to believe! P.S. re: 'can they...'
Aug 4, 2004 1:20PM PDT

Rosalie, they can do whatever the SCOTUS says they can do. That's why it's vital that Bushcroft not be allowed any more appointments to the Constitution's last line of defense against the growing police state.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Two or three people should not have that much power.
Aug 4, 2004 2:09PM PDT

I can't really believe that two or three people DO have that much power.

Bush and Ashcroft do not own the United States, they serve the people of the United States. Wouldn't Congress have a say? Is there no limit to what can be done in the name of this new drive for security? I have always felt a comfort knowing the Supreme Court was there to right any wrongs. Now you have me wondering about that.

They can tap my PC (and be bored to death) if they want for all I care but that's besides the point, they shouldn't be able to.

.

- Collapse -
It get's worse than that!!
Aug 4, 2004 10:58PM PDT

It would appear that the goal of the Bushcroft DOJ is to attain the ability to monitor every facet of residents's lives. Several months ago, they were talking about TIA (Total Information Awareness) - a database containing ALL financial, medical, military, educational, travel, purchasing, voting, internet usage (including e-mail, browsing habits, chat room dialogues, instant messaging), etc. data for all residents of the US. Now you may say that these records already exist. True. BUT not all in one place where, using sophisticated software, this data may be searched for 'suspicious' activity. In addition, currently the government needs a court order to obtain most of this information. With a unified data base, court orders would become moot. By the way, the name TIA was changed to something else that made it appear to be an anti-terrorism tool because the 'natives were becoming restless'.

Are you ready to have the FBI come knocking on your door at 5:00AM because you sent an e-mail to a friend stating that the 'PRESIDENT' of your local garden club 'HI-JACKED' the recent election to gain his position and that his acceptance speech really 'BOMBED' and the random search of the TIA database turned up these 'trigger' words?

One of the posters here posted a PGP message with the comment "Wiretap this". All the government needs to do is to outlaw non-governmental encryption. Even if your message only contains grandma's chocolate chip cookie recipe, you'd still be breaking the law! I can even forsee the day when 'file-wiping', 'cache cleaning', etc. software will be outlawed.

I also noted that, this morning, the government is trying to get 'black-boxes' installed in vehicles on a mandatory basis.

There is also talk of embedding chips into people, supposedly for 'medical diagnosis' reasons or, in the case of children, tracking purposes in case they get lost, kidnapped, etc.

If one considers this carefully, you will see that not only will the government know what your doing at every moment, but will know where you're doing it and who you're doing it with.

Will the American people stand for this? Unfortunately the answer is yes. The government is saying that all of this is necessary to 'protect us from terrorists' and the people are buying it. Our civil liberties and constitutional rights are slowly but inexorably being taken from us and we're letting it happen - all in the guise of a false sense of security! One of these days, we're all going to wake up in a police state.

- Collapse -
I should have included this link
Aug 4, 2004 11:22PM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: It get's worse than that!!
Aug 5, 2004 2:09AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Now that's a great idea! I'll buy that and add a tip.
Aug 5, 2004 3:02AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: Alien ID chips
Aug 5, 2004 3:45AM PDT

Hi, Diana.

Are you ready to accept an RFID chip when you go abroad? Because you know any requirements we impose will soon be imposed on our citizens abroad, *** for tat. I was frankly surprised that the chinese didn't take our fingerprints!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
For those countries that require a visa and a time limit
Aug 5, 2004 6:42AM PDT

sure

- Collapse -
Re: For those countries that require a visa and a time limit
Aug 6, 2004 2:54AM PDT

Hi, Diana.

Will they take them out when you leave? What would I do with the old Chinese chip now that my 30-day tourist visa has expired? (BTW, it's almost impossible for Chinese to obtain a tourist visa, which presents a huge image problem for us over there).

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Of course
Aug 6, 2004 12:49PM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Good idea, Diana! :-)
Aug 5, 2004 6:22AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) What a frightening picture you paint. :-(
Aug 5, 2004 3:16AM PDT
- Collapse -
Re: (NT) What a frightening picture you paint. :-(
Aug 5, 2004 4:08AM PDT

I haven't even got started yet. Consider this:

You send an e-mail, converse in a chat room, post to a forum, voicing a criticism of the administration or it's policies. All of a sudden you're on a 'watch list' for 'dissidents'. Your boss, et. al. are informed that you are not 'trustworthy'. Not an overt threat but a gentle reminder that you are not PC. Do you think you'll be working tomorrow?

Maybe you've got relatives in Canada and you travel there to visit. Since Canada didn't really support us in the war in Iraq, they must be the enemy. (If you're not with us, you're against us!). Now you're on another watch list and the FBI will be taking 'special interest' in you.

Suppose that you buy French wine at the grocery store and it shows up on your Von's card or Stater Bros. card. Since France didn't support us, you're on another watch list.

Think I'm paranoid? Just wait!

Make sure you vote in November. If Bushco wins, it may be the last free election you ever see!!!

- Collapse -
Re: What a frightening picture -- IF we can vote...
Aug 6, 2004 1:32PM PDT

Hi, Bill.

There were reports in 1973 that the Nixon Administration had commissioned a study by the Rand Coporation (the favorite right-wing think-tank of the day, now replaced by Hoover and heritage) as to how much civil dissent would be required for the public to accept cancellation of the '76 elections, with Nixon continuing in office for the duration of the emergency. Suspicion on the left was that FBI agents provocateur would arrange that amount of discord...

I mention this because published reports (in the major media, not extreme sources) now say that there are contingency plans for the same thing THIS year in case of a major terrorist attack (can't go the way of 2004 Spain, you know -- so we'll go the way of 1935 Germany instead!) Supposedly the DOJ is already working on what legal steps would be required. Next time I see one I'll link to this message, or someone else may remember seeing it (I saw such a report on CNN or MSNBC in the last couple of days...)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(in the major media, not extreme sources)
Aug 13, 2004 3:11AM PDT

That is an oxymoron!

Believe it or not Dave but even the Constitution provides for such should it be necessary.

Kennedy was thought to have been thinking along those lines himself as was Eisenhower and also FDR if one is interested in reading past conspiracy theories.

Your rather extreme paranoia is really showing lately--wonder if it is actually because you are learning things about your party and its candidate that you would rather not admit to and are coping in this manner.

- Collapse -
Re: (in the major media, not extreme sources)
Aug 13, 2004 3:26AM PDT

Ed, Just about every major democracy that turned into a dictatorship had a "temporary emergency" that required "temporary suspension of elections for the duration of the emergency." The problem is that it's always the one "temporarily" in power who gets to decide when the emergency is over, and somehow that rarely seems to happen. We had elections during the Civil War -- how much more "civil unrest" could there be?
"Those who forget history" (or worse yet, ignore it) "are doomed to repeat it."

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!