[Reader-list] Carnivore: Its Simply Not Cricket

[Menso Heus]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 02:34:20AM +0000, Lachlan Brown wrote:

> I think an important question to raise is: Why just when the 
> consituency of Internet users has begun to shift from a Eur-American
> axis, when South Asians, women of color (ie undercurrents) and lists
> like Afro-Futurism are using Internet to great effect in forming
> affinities and opinion sharing internationally, and at a time when less 
> than 50% of users are now American do we suddenly get a lot of hype 
> about the 'dangers of surveillance technology'?

Because we only just found out that such large networks were in place, well,
the big public anyway. All the spy-networks I know of are based in either EU
or US though, not Africa, so I don't really see your point here.

Are you trying to convince me that this is some conspiracy os the US/EU to 
try and silence Asian media? That these networks not actually exist or should
not be taken too seriously?
 
> I do not disagree with the fact that potentially 'packet sniffers' 
> (where does this terminology come from?) can intercept all digital 
> communication, nor that the sophistication of strategies of intelligence 
> gathering which have been around for decades cannot fill in what 'Carnivore' 
> 'Omnivore' and 'Dragonet'- all used by the FBI apparantly - miss in our
> media and communication lives. 

The internet, as you might or might not know, sends it's data in little packets,
a packet sniffer 'sniffs' these packets to see what's inside them, hence: packet
sniffer.

> Nor would I disagree with concern about private misuse of surveillance 
> methods and technical applications.

Good.

> I think that the addition of yet more technology to counter the
> detrimental impacts of technolgy on culture is the wrong tactic. And I 
> think Geert is wrong to hype the potential 'frightfulness' of technology.
> There are technologies more frightful than Carnivore, and these are more
> immediate threats to people's wellfare, rights, and health. This 'tactical'
> thinking surrenders the 'strategic' terrain to enemies, real or imagined.
> It leads to paranoia. It leads to disempowerment.

Explain to me just how I'm being disempowered by encrypting my e-mail so that
only the intended receipient can read it?

> A more successful strategy (one more fully worked out in a range of
> civil rights issues during the past several decades at least) is to counter 
> through clearly articulated argument for rights, for policies that protect 
> rights, and for legislation that upholds rights vis a vis State as well as
> private sector. I think this is the more productive way to go.

I think it's quite a naive way. Privacy groups have been doing this and reach
little, especially after September 11th when everyone who did not want whatever
government agency to read their mail automatically became a terrorist.
We have rights, we have policies for rights, and we have laws (and now even 
anti-terrorist laws) which make all these rights useless.

> I read the article Geert linked to and it ended with the
> admission that 'According to the official: "The IB is the only 
> Indian intelligence Agency that has the ability to intercept 
> mails. None of the other agencies involved in investigations—the 
> Delhi Police, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 
> Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)—have the ability 
> to intercept mails. Only the CIA has similar capabilities."
> 'The official, however, also admitted that the 
> exercise of intercepting mails will present a logistical 
> nightmare given the huge mass of mails emanating from India.'

I can imagine. I can also imagine I would say this if I'd be running the 
system, even if it would be perfectly functioning.

> A surveillance society is formed by the *belief*
> in the effectivity of surveillance. It is not countered by
> the distribution of state surveillance technologies developed
> during the Cold War among the general public. That's rather like
> Archie Bunker's (famous American TV Sit Com 'red neck' reactionary
> Yank character) suggestion during the hijack panic of the 1970s 
> that the solution was to 'arm the passengers.

A surveillance society is what we live in, whether or not you believe in,
for example, the camera's that film you 6 hours a day when you're outside, they 
are there and filming you, period. 

I've made quite a few postings to this list in the past explaining somewhat 
how this works, about surveillance cameras, about tracking by GSM phone and
traffic analysis, etc. I suggest you read these.

> I think Geert is slipping uneccessarily into hyping panic over
> 'technology', when the answer to the problem will require more
> than yet more technology (American and European technology) a bit 
> of work on rights and responsibilities.

Well, you go explain the US that they are denying me my rights with Echelon
and I'll just send my private e-mail encrypted in the meanwhile, ok?

> The article also commented on one kind of potential use:
> 
> "Commenting on the issue of invasion of privacy of an individual, the 
> official said: "This exercise is similar to the secret cellphone 
> tapping of suspects involved in ... cricket match-fixing, 
> that was implemented by the Delhi Police. It met with a lot of success. 
> The issue of intercepting mail is being done in the interest of national 
> security."

All things that take away privacy from the individual are always done for the
sake of national security, because then the herd goes "mooooooo" and accepts.

Menso

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Disco never died, it just changed it's name to protect the innocent"
  	                     - Gloria Gaynor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------