FBI caught using Deep Packet Inspection for domestic surveillance

FBI caught using DPI for Domestic Surveillance on ISP traffic. This is a junior version of what the NSA does on a national level.

 

Not new January 30, 2007, but i hadn't read it before, so

And confirmation that the Carnivore surveillance system actually existed , and is not dead as such, just later renamed as DCS1000. So if asked if Carnivore exits, "They" could officially say no

 

Yeah it's not like they haven't lied to us before. I have always heard it was real however.

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Narus

 

The important thing here is that there is no minimization. It used to be standard that surveillance on a phone tap would cease if it was determined that the call was innocuous or privileged. Hundreds of hours worth of tape about the defendant's family life, for instance, was neither relevant nor worthwhile, and evidence obtained as a result of innocuous material might be constitutionally barred.

Obviously, full pipe recording makes those concerns look positively quaint. And much worse than Carnivore, which used filters. So yes, this is more akin to the concerns that Thomas Drake had in regard to the bastardization of Binney's Thin Thread.

It is blatantly unconstitutional. Or it should be, anyway. But we are well past the point of being able to play catch-up with the law.

 

@ nix et al

Ahh, the LAW It doesn't apply to "Them" anymore It's not just that They think it doesn't etc as in previous decades, but in reality it does NOT This has been proved over & over again ! So what's the answer ?

Probably lots of answers could be put forward, but unfortunately as things stand, right now anyway They will continue to erode our civil liberties etc etc for as long as They can, because They can

There needs to be a BIG, as in MASSIVE shakedown of Everything bad in .GOV etc, before we can have a Truly better society etc. Unless that happens, & Very soon, then I believe it WILL happen, & i for one can't wait, as it's LONG overdue. It won't be pretty that's for sure, but what do you want, more & worse of continues bad **** or get it fixed & soon & then imprison etc ALL of Them

 

Reminds me of the hidden broadcast in the P2P protocol which torrent users fail to grip.

 

What is that?

 

Wow, they're really getting over the limits

 

Are there any Limits for Them, BTW?

 

Probably can't inspect their superiors, that's it.

 

Or who knows, maybe they do it and their superiors doesn't know

 

When it comes to DPI it is essentially a "legitimate" MITM attack and can still be defeated in numerous ways. VPN's are the easiest. i2p and TOR both work. DPI Can also be obscured (in theory) by Throwing random data at random destinations. IE. sending a packet with ("82813173udhuidhauish^^#@!#&*() ) to an ip such as 8.8.8.8. this does effect bandwidth but if they can't differentiate encrypted VPN data from random data it should obscure their results ( in theory -- I haven't seen any tests to support this) . Also this is why we use public wifi + TOR +VPN +VPS +i2p

 

you know the P2P client called bitthief? Its just downloads no uploads. Torrent users despise that application. Now that application was created because some bloke from Switzerland told the people from Bittorrent and the others there is steganographic channels in the P2P protocol and people can monitor or convey it messages in it without being detected. They didn't want to listen so they created the application. It runs in that channels. Now why didn't the guys from the P2P clients take note of it? Because they use it too to give their clients a advantage. That's why one torrents client is faster than the other. They brake the rule of filesharing by running in a channel secretly doing a handshake and a broadcast to one another where its hidden from the others. You can use that same channels to monitor a network undetected collecting data who downloads what with what ip.

 

I'm calling FUD on that

BitThief was created was written as an academic POC that one could cheat at BitTorrent, in their own words, "the BitThief client emerged as a proof of concept to show that free riding in BitTorrent is possible"

Five years later at Infocom they presented a paper on ways the individuals in a BiTorrent swarm could, theoretically, pass information to one another stegonographically by doing things like manipulating the order of piece requests.

Their conclusions:

Nothing about secret monitoring, though their experiment makes the assumption "Let us now consider an authority that is able to monitor
connections individually. By individually we mean in this
context that the authority can monitor any communication
link between any two peers" and is concerned with nodes within the swarm passing messages.

None of that of course had anything to do with why they wrote it in the first place, which was basically to demonstrate that a client could cheat.

 

Also calling FUD on that. Why do you always post such claims, provide no links and searching often reveals nothing (or exaggerated results.)?
This is the second post I have read from you with such a claim (the first https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1890181&postcount=252)

I am not trying to be rude but please point links when you are making such claims other whys no one will believe it.

/rant and back on topic