FBI caught using Deep Packet Inspection for domestic surveillance

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by SteveTX, May 20, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SteveTX

    SteveTX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,641
    Location:
    TX
    FBI caught using DPI for Domestic Surveillance on ISP traffic. This is a junior version of what the NSA does on a national level.

     
  2. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    Not new :p January 30, 2007, but i hadn't read it before, so :thumb:

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

     
  3. cm1971

    cm1971 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Posts:
    727
    Yeah it's not like they haven't lied to us before. I have always heard it was real however.
     
  4. Warlockz

    Warlockz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Posts:
    642
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Narus
     
  5. nix

    nix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    257
    Location:
    Miami
    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.
     
  6. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    @ nix et al

    Ahh, the LAW :p It doesn't apply to "Them" anymore :thumb: It's not just that They think it doesn't etc as in previous decades, but in reality it does NOT :thumbd: 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 :mad:

    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 :thumb:
     
  7. Spooony

    Spooony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Posts:
    514
    Reminds me of the hidden broadcast in the P2P protocol which torrent users fail to grip.
     
  8. Yanick

    Yanick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    269
    What is that?
     
  9. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Wow, they're really getting over the limits :eek:
     
  10. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Are there any Limits for Them, BTW? :doubt:
     
  11. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Probably can't inspect their superiors, that's it.
     
  12. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    Or who knows, maybe they do it and their superiors doesn't know :rolleyes:
     
  13. x942

    x942 Guest

    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 ;)
     
  14. Spooony

    Spooony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Posts:
    514
    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.
     
  15. mvario

    mvario Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Posts:
    339
    Location:
    Haddonfield, IL
    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.
     
  16. x942

    x942 Guest

    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 ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.