Maximum PC surveillance RSS Feed

Congress Expresses Concern Over E-Mail Surveillance

Justn Kerr — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:28:24 -0500

The National Security Agency is facing renewed scrutiny over its domestic surveillance program, and Congress is now claiming that their powers may go too far. A review of recent telephone and email intercepts seems to suggest that the agency may be monitoring the conversations of everyday Americans far more than they let on. Longstanding legal issues aside, the N.S.A, as of last year, is expected to only monitor the private communications of US citizens if it can be demonstrated that it was done so as an incidental byproduct of investigating individuals abroad.

Even more troubling, in April, it was disclosed that intercepts of private American communications were far beyond the legal limits for both late 2008 and early 2009, and the extent of the problem is still being investigated. Further supporting evidence was provided by a former N.S.A analyst who claims he was trained in 2005 to use specialized email monitoring software, an application which intelligence officials confirms is still in operation. New Jersey Democratic representative Rush Holt admitted that “Some actions are so flagrant that they can’t be accidental”, but still admits, few lawmakers can deal with the issues because of the technical complexities of the operation. “The people making the policy,” he said, “don’t understand the technicalities.”

It’s easy to see that trying to distinguish between domestic and foreign email correspondence can be difficult, but is the privacy trade off worth the added security benefit? Let us know what you think.

New DOJ Budget Hints at the Future of Cyber-Snooping

Andy Salisbury — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:52:44 -0500

The release of the FBI’s surveillance programs budget for 2010 has revealed some pretty interesting new programs, one of which fall under the “awesome code name” category.

The budget shows that the FBI is in the process of developing a new “Advanced Electronic Surveillance” program, which is funded at $233.9 million in 2010. It will have 133 employees, 15 of whom are agents.

Along with this, another program named “Going Dark,” will provide support to the electronic surveillance program by collecting intelligence and evidence. “The term 'Going Dark' does not refer to a specific capability, but is a program name for the part of the FBI, Operational Technology Division's (OTD) lawful interception program which is shared with other law enforcement agencies,” stated an FBI spokesman.

Image Credit: ABC News

Zonet ZVC7630W Wireless IP Camera

Michael Brown — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:19:01 -0500

At first glance, Zonet’s ZVC7630W Wi-Fi IP camera seems to be a lust-worthy device. It’s equipped with a two-way intercom, automatic night-vision mode, a USB port for external storage, and software that supports up to 16 cameras. Our enthusiasm dwindled, however, once we got our hands on the device.

We don’t have high expectations for a webcam's visual quality, but we certainly expect better than the fuzzy, color-shifting image that Zonet’s product streamed over a wired Ethernet connection—in broad daylight, no less. The camera is limited to a resolution of 640x480 pixels, but the video we saw looked worse than that no matter how much we fiddled with the focusing ring. And after our fourth trip running from the PC to the camera to adjust its focus, and then back to the PC to see the result, we began to wonder why they didn’t just slap a fixed-focus lens on the thing and be done with it.

You can configure the camera to operate on an IEEE 802.11g network (it supports WEP, WPA, and WPA2 security), but we found its range too limited to communicate with our D-Link DIR-655 router when the camera was outside the house. If your Wi-Fi network is secure, you’ll need to hardwire the camera to the network and program its firmware with your network password before you can redeploy it in wireless mode.

A light sensor and a ring of six infrared LEDs encircle the lens and automatically switch the camera to night-vision mode when it’s dark. We thought the two-way intercom would be an equally useful feature—until we realized that you need to provide a powered speaker at the camera end to actually make use of it. But if you’re thinking the camera would be terrific placed at a front door or gate, be aware that it has no mechanism for a visitor to get your attention to initiate a conversation—you’ll have to rig up a wireless doorbell, instead.

If you set up multiple cameras—the included software will support up to 16—only one of the cameras can use the talk feature at a time. The camera is also not weatherized, so you’ll need to purchase an enclosure should you decide to set it up outside (one that’s big enough to accommodate a speaker, if you intend to use the intercom).

The generic software Zonet provides is underwhelming.

The camera is equipped with a motion detector that can trigger video recording, but it has only two zones. Video clips can be recorded to either a host PC over the network connection or a USB storage device plugged directly into the camera (that outside enclosure just keeps getting bigger). The onboard USB port supplies 500mA of power to an attached device.

But our biggest complaint about the ZVC7630W isn’t with the hardware, it’s with the software. Compared to the slick user interface in Logitech’s WiLife webcam system, Zonet’s UltraView UI looks as though it was designed and laid out in 10 minutes. You use your web browser or mobile phone to monitor your camera over the Internet, but if you have multiple cameras, each stream must be viewed in a separate browser window. The WiLife system feeds all the cameras’ streams to a secure central server that Logitech operates. When you log into that server, you can see all the cameras’ streams in one convenient window (or you can cycle through each camera’s stream). Zonet has WiLife beat on the number of cameras that can be deployed, however; WiLife is limited to just six units.

Why Immunity Matters: What Could Be Behind AT&T's Bizarre Proposal to Filter the Internet

Erin Simon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:07:05 -0600

At CES, AT&T announced its intention to filter its network for copyright infringement. But why? AT&T isn't a copyright owner itself, and it can moderate bandwidth usage by regulating bandwidth directly. Further, under § 512(a) of the DMCA, online service providers can't be held liable for copyright infringement of files that pass across their network, provided that “transmission... is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider” and “the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.” Why would AT&T voluntarily step outside of that safe harbor?

Filtering would expose AT&T to massive liability. As Tim Wu pointed out in Slate, AT&T is currently what is known as a “common carrier,” a public service utility that serves all comers on equal terms. As long as the utility does not discriminate among the messages that pass over its network, it can't be held liable for the content of any of them. But once AT&T begins picking and choosing what messages can get through, it takes responsibility for the ones it allows – infringing, defamatory, you name it. And no filtering system on earth could tease out the intricacies of fair use law, which is definitively an “I know it when I see it” balancing test. Further, as Orin Kerr notes, such filtering would itself violate the Wiretap Act as an interception of the contents of a person's communications.

AT&T is already threatened by massive liability for its (alleged) complicity in illegal warrantless wiretapping, and AT&T is currently lobbying its brittle, corporate heart out in an effort to get retroactive immunity from that liability. What can a telecom learn from this situation? AT&T may reasonably expect that it can break whatever laws it wants, as long as it has the influence in DC to buy a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's also possible that whatever backroom deals are being hammered out about immunity from wiretapping laws are being written so broadly that the service provider won't be accountable to consumers for its behavior, ever. Perhaps AT&T is floating this idea now to gain purchase in its negotiations, or maybe content filtering is the price AT&T will pay for getting the retroactive immunity it wants.

Whether wiretapping immunity is a factor in AT&T's copyright filtering plan, we can only speculate; unfortunately, the general public can't sit in on our representatives' closed-door meetings with lobbyists. And that's exactly the problem. How much to let government and corporations access the contents of our private communications is a matter for public debate. Immunity, whether retroactively applied to wiretapping or prospectively applied to filtering, means the public never gets to find out.

Disclaimer: I interned at the EFF, which is currently litigating a wiretapping case against AT&T.

Immunity for Telecom Compliance in Warrantless Spying ?

Erin Simon — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:04:54 -0600

The Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to vote today on a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but the vote has been pushed back to next week to give lawmakers more time to consider proposed amendments. One of the key disputes is whether to grant immunity to the telephone and internet service providers who are accused of illegally participating in the NSA's warrantless surveillance programs. Immunity would end lawsuits by state public utility commissions and civil liberties groups (among them my former employer the Electronic Frontier Foundation) which charge the telecoms with turning over massive amounts of user data to the government in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), among other laws. The government and the telecoms in those cases have thus far been unsuccessful in trying to get the cases thrown out on the grounds that the possible surveillance is a state secret, so now it appears the telecom lobbyists are trying to win in Washington instead.

I won't pretend to be neutral on this issue; I went to law school because I believe, in a fundamental and probably naïve way, in the rule of law. If you go to court and you lose, you shouldn't be able to buy yourself a get out of jail free card by donating to congressional reelection funds.

Mark Klein, the AT&T technician who blew the whistle on that company turning over millions of email and phone communications to the NSA, went to DC this week to make the same point directly to Congress. He told the Washington Post, "If they've done something massively illegal and unconstitutional -- well, they should suffer the consequences. It's not my place to feel bad for them. They made their bed, they have to lie in it. The ones who did [anything wrong], you can be sure, are high up in the company. Not the average Joes, who I enjoyed working with."

Instead of blanket immunity, some lawmakers are tossing around the idea of indemnification – the telecoms would still litigate the cases against them, but the government would pay any damages. Another compromise proposal would have the government substitute for the telecoms, stepping into their place in the lawsuits. Either of these proposals would permit the cases to continue, which would allow us the public to find out just how extensive the alleged surveillance was.

Part of Patriot Act Struck Down

Erin Simon — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:01:59 -0500

An Oregon District Court has struck down two sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as amended by the Patriot Act for violating the Fourth Amendment. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823 allow the government to conduct surveillance without a warrant when collection of foreign intelligence is “a significant purpose” of the surveillance. A line of cases interpreting the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements has held that foreign intelligence must be the “primary purpose” of such surveillance in order to square with the Constitution.

The case began with the misidentification of a fingerprint in the investigation of 2004's train bombings in Madrid. The FBI mistakenly identified Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim convert, as a suspect in that act of terrorism. Before arresting him, the Bureau accordingly searched his house and office, put him under round-the-clock surveillance, and wiretapped his phone, all without judicial oversight, and all permitted under the language of the Patriot Act's revisions to FISA.

Mayfield settled part of the suit for $2 million dollars, but the settlement left the door open for the attorney to challenge the law that had authorized his surveillance. A Department of Justice internal probe called the Mayfield investigation inappropriate and potentially motivated by his Muslim faith.

Yesterday's District Court opinion stressed the importance of the 4th Amendment's check against such abuses: "For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law - with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

Photo courtesy nolifebeforecoffee.

Free as in Speech Week

Erin Simon — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:26:59 -0500

The First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot abridge the people's right to free speech. That protection made headlines in two cases this week, one copyright-related and another dealing with surveillance law.

In Golan v. Gonzales, the 10th Circuit held that a law re-copyrighting material that had fallen into the public domain implicated the First Amendment. While not striking down the law, it did remand the case back to the lower court to evaluate the effect of the copyright expansion on protected speech. The case was brought by tech law guru Lawrence Lessig, who has a happy writeup at his website. Another recent case in the 9th Circuit, Kahle v. Gonzales, held that a similar copyright expansion didn't raise First Amendment problems because it was within the “traditional contours” of copyright law (a standard set by a previous Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft, upholding yet another copyright expansion). The circuit split increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will review the issue.

Meanwhile, a New York District Court has struck down a provision in the Patriot Act on First Amendment grounds. The Patriot Act authorized the FBI to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) demanding private information about individuals. These letters, unlike warrants, have no judicial supervision, and the recipient of the NSL is under a gag order never to discuss even the fact that they have received such a demand. The ACLU (here's their happy writeup) filed suit in 2004 on behalf of one Internet company that had received such a letter, whose identity had to remain concealed thanks to the secrecy provision. In Doe v. Gonzales, the Southern District of New York held that the NSLs were an unconstitutional intrusion on free speech without allowing meaningful judicial review.

Thumbnail photo courtesy of roland.

FISA Taken Out Behind Shed, Shot

Erin Simon — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:04:15 -0500

The unbelievably-named Protect America Act, which was rammed through both houses of Congress in the last hours of this year's legislative session, amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give the government the legal ability to do just about everything it has so far been doing illegally.

The Act permits warrantless surveillance targeted at persons (even US citizens) reasonably believed to be located outside the US, which sounds like it legitimates what the government has been calling the Terrorist Surveillance Program. It also authorizes the government to secretly order communications service providers – phone companies, ISPs, email providers – to create back doors in their services to facilitate eavesdropping. Providers can appeal the orders to the secret FISA Court, but are immune from suit for participating. Those who refuse to comply can be held in contempt.

The Act also grandfathers in whatever current surveillance programs have received FISA Court approval. It's set to expire in six months, but programs authorized under the Act can last up to a year before needing re-authorization.

Plus, the person responsible for submitting a twice-yearly report on surveillance abuses is the Attorney General, the same Alberto Gonzales who has already lied under oath to Congress about the existence of surveillance abuses.

Democrats had prepared their own bill, featuring oversight and limits on domestic spying. President “30% Approval” Bush threatened to veto it and then blame Democrats for the lack of a bill. Facing Republican accusations that without this bill, Washington D.C. would be hit by a terrorist attack in August, the Democratically-controlled congress passed the bill.

Thumbnail photo courtesy nolifebeforecoffee.