Re: Major University to Review Carnivore
At 11:04 AM 8/11/00 -0700, jeradonah wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/biztech/articles/11cnd-carnivore. html August 10, 2000 Major University to Be Asked to Review F.B.I.'s 'Carnivore' Is there a *John* Major University? :-) ... Today's announcement was not a surprise, since the F.B.I. said several weeks ago that it wanted an outside study of Carnivore. The desire for just such an independent analysis has been fueled by mounting concerns about invasions of privacy. Basically they're trying to look like Good Guys to prevent more FOIA and deflect more flak from the public. It's not very convincing. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
RE: Major University to Review Carnivore [cpunk]
At 2:59 PM -0400 8/14/00, Trei, Peter wrote: -- From: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 11:04 AM 8/11/00 -0700, jeradonah wrote: Major University to Be Asked to Review F.B.I.'s 'Carnivore' Pesonally, I agree that the problem with Carnivore is not in the device itself, but rather in the mindset that suggests that this type of device is acceptable at all. University of Oceania Selected to Review FBI's New Video Escrow Child Protection System Airstrip One, OC. FBI Director Lewis Free announced today that the University of Oceania has been selected to review the FBI's Video Escrow Child Protection System. "We have listened to the concerns of the proles. We in the Inner Party are not dismissive of their legitimate concerns," he said. "B.B. has instructed us to work with industry to achieve a fair and impartial review," he added. University of Oceania Chancellor O'Brien has promised a speedy review. "The proles have a right to know whether the FBI's cameras can only be turned on according to the law." "Oceania has always been a nation of laws," he added, smiling up at the camera in his office.
unobservability and anonymity (Re: Major University to Review Carnivore [cpunk])
Peter Trei writes: [...] Pesonally, I agree that the problem with Carnivore is not in the device itself, but rather in the mindset that suggests that this type of device is acceptable at all. Right. Various colorful expressions of dissatisfaction with the "public servants" aside (walls, guns, revolutions), the political climate and state of the political system suggests things will get worse before they get better. If they ever do get better. Political games are a losing avenue. The only viable approach is deployment of counter-technology. A juicy target even with end-to-end crypto, such as PGP, is the ticker information -- who is talking to who. Carnivore will presumably track this, or maybe even highlight it as above average interest if it involves end-to-end crypto. We're providing too much information for Carnivore, Echelon etc to analyse and produce pretty pictures and reports of co-conspirators for profiling to narrow the fishing expeditions. For this reason protocols with anonymity are important, mainly for the unobservability property rather than anonymity per se. Anonymity is important for privacy and free speech, and pseudonymity, but the unobservability property (communicants may know each other, but don't want the communication to be observable) is possibly more important strategically in the short term. Adam
