[Copying this to Declan so that it can go to whichever of his lists it
ended up on.]
Thanks for the many responses on this topic. Many interesting ideas &
theories.
The most popular so far:
> * "IP number capturing" software
Not just an IP address grabber (already exists), but something that
grabs originating and destination addresses, and maps out correlations
(e.g., to see who knows who, and who the next surveillance targets
should be).
> "chat monitoring" software
Pretty obvious; presumably includes duplicity by AOL, etc. Presumably
for spying on would-be pederasts, but could have a lot broader
application (think "Keyword: Militia"...)
> "image matching" software
Could be any number of things (face recog, for example), but most
probably something that takes a pile of alleged child porn images from
a seized hard drive, and compares them to on-file known child porn
rapdily (presumably in a way that gets around recompression, cropping,
resizing, etc.) Similar technologies are somewhat more alarming than
the theorized application to child porn investigations (e.g. remote
cataloging of images and text, such that FBI or USSS could "profile"
someone whose web site mentions "Unintended Consequences", "gun", and
"Clinton" on the same page as an assassination risk to be watched.
> "steganography detection" software
Definitely possible, but defeatable if you know how it works. This
would seem to be for intelligence-related surveillance, since it
probably won't be encountered much in child porn investigations, though
encrypted HDs are probably common.
> a "framework for a program" to enable remotely searching subjects' PCs.
Basically a glorified script-kiddie toy, an FBI version of Back Orofice
or SATAN. A lot of agencies are already supposedly using such stuff.
There may be something new & different about this application of the
idea; one wonders what it would be.
Most who commented on the matter concluded that the guy doing this
coding for the FBI has a huge job to do, but must be building tools
that use tech they already have - probably more integration work than
anything else - since loads of companies have been working on all of
these technologies. It's not like the guy has a huge research staff at
his disposal. Ergo the gee-whizness of the early press is probably
misplaced.
PS: The to-be-faxed copy of (what's left of) the court document has yet
to arrive, so it is not yet up on our site.
--
--
Stanton McCandlish [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eff.org/~mech
Online Communications Director/Webmaster, Electronic Frontier Foundation
voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 fax: +1 415 436 9993
