WE ARE WATCHING YOU.

November 24, 2001 9:17 AM

WE ARE WATCHING YOU. "The FBI added that its research is 'always mindful of constitutional, privacy and commercial equities,' and that its use of new technology can be challenged in court and in Congress." No really, go ahead, try and stop us if you don't like it. That's your (snicker, snicker) right.
posted by rushmc (12 comments total)

See also FBI software cracks encryption wall: ‘Magic Lantern’ part of new ‘Enhanced Carnivore Project’ from MSNBC. Scary, scary stuff!
posted by Carol Anne at 9:37 AM on November 24, 2001

I think they realize they're treading on shaky ground - now they're changed the name "Carnivore" to "the less beastly moniker of DCS1000."
posted by ferris at 9:47 AM on November 24, 2001

A few days ago there was a post about some program--I forget the name--given free that did a few things, among which was to skirt around filters to get full content of the net and also to provide proxy to concealaddress.
Then the copnay announced it was closing the program down for financial reasons.
Next it was revealed that the compnay had been funded by the CIA.
Then we next learnedthrough extrapolation that the CIA clearly thought it more important to circumvent proxies (yes; you can get them elsehwere) than to allow the Chinese or Saudis to get beyond their country's censorship through the uyse of filters.
Nice to know what our priorities are.
posted by Postroad at 9:51 AM on November 24, 2001

Postroad: I believe you referred to this: CIA-Backed Web Privacy Firm Closes Service. "Emeryville, California-based SafeWeb last week quietly shut down its service which allowed people to surf the Web anonymously for free, and is unlikely to restart it, spokeswoman Sandra Song said...The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, has invested $1 million in SafeWeb, including $250,000 to license technology, Song added."
posted by Carol Anne at 10:01 AM on November 24, 2001

Last I heard, the Chinese or Saudis weren't paying taxes to the US government. Just a data point.

As for Carnivore/DCS1000, Magic Lantern, and the rest, I have no problem with law enforcement developing tools to use. I simply have aproblem with them being used outside of the normal Fourth Amendment protections, i.e. search warrants and judicial supervision of prosecutorial powers. Unfortunately, some of that was just passed by our esteemed representatives as the USA PATRIOT Act, and may or may not (depending on the clause) expire in a few years.
posted by dhartung at 11:25 AM on November 24, 2001

Last I heard, the Chinese or Saudis weren't paying taxes to the US government. Just a data point.

Random data point, or apropos of something?
posted by rushmc at 1:05 PM on November 24, 2001

Dear C.A.--right.thanks. Dear Dhatung: you are right but have you ever tried FOI from FBI? That will tell you all you have to know about what the law says and how it is gotten around.
posted by Postroad at 1:48 PM on November 24, 2001

Doesn't the "magic lantern" device constitute "domestic terrorism" under the anti-hacking provisions of the USA PATRIOT act? And as such would the use of that device not make the FBI the largest terrorist organization on earth? Inquiring minds want to know.
posted by clevershark at 4:33 PM on November 24, 2001

No really, go ahead, try and stop us if you don't like it. That's your (snicker, snicker) right.

"Catch-22 says they can do anything we can't stop them from doing."
posted by StOne at 10:02 PM on November 24, 2001

Anyone stop to consider that 'Magic Lantern' is about as amazing as Ginger? Its just a keylogger and I'm sure that the FBI has had keyloggers at least as long as I have. Gee, when was that? Early 80s?

The press and accompanying FUD looks a lot like a PR boost for Ashcroft's new terror policing techique which I call "don't fuck with us, we know computers!"
posted by skallas at 7:39 AM on November 25, 2001

Well, yes, but it's a keylogger that uses operating system exploits to get in and install itself - that's the new twist.
posted by holloway at 8:23 PM on November 28, 2001

Here's some of the prior discussion, by the way.

Postroad, I don't know what kind of extrapolation you're doing, but the CIA did not shut down SafeWeb. They were merely an investor in one of the many dot-coms that have failed over the last few years.

Of course, it was a great service, and its humanitarian benefits were commendable. But just because the CIA refuses to give the company another $1 million to stay afloat doesn't mean this country doesn't care about worldwide government opression.

Oh yeah, you also proved your own point wrong by saying that you can get proxies elsewhere. Can't the Saudis and Chinese also do that?
posted by MarkO at 8:29 PM on November 28, 2001