RefBan

Referral Banners

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Government surveillance system Trapwire could be illegal

August 15th, 2012Top Story

Government surveillance system Trapwire could be illegal

By Annalee Newitz

Government surveillance system Trapwire could be illegal Last week, whistleblower site Wikileaks posted some internal company documents about a high-tech surveillance system called Trapwire, which is used by governments and private companies to identify "suspicious" or "terrorist" behavior. Subsequently, Wikileaks was brought down by a concerted DDOS attack, and conspiracy theories mushroomed online about the Trapwire system, which was said to include foolproof facial recognition software (it doesn't) and to siphon private surveillance camera footage to intelligence agents (this is what Trapwire claims that its eponymous product does). Much has also been made of the many former CIA agents and officials who work at Trapwire and its former parent company Abraxas.

Conspiracy theories aside, there are a lot of shady aspects to Trapwire. And one of the shadiest is its dubious legal status. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court could mean that using Trapwire to track people is illegal without a search warrant.

US v. Jones

At issue is a case called US v. Jones, decided by the Supreme Court earlier this year, in which police had secretly put a GPS device on a suspect's car and tracked it for nearly a month without a warrant. As a result, they convicted the suspect of dealing drugs. But the Court decided that the use of a GPS in this case was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which is designed to protect people from unreasonable, privacy-invading searches. How could tracking this man's car in public really be a violation of privacy? After all, many people saw him driving around.

Several members of the Court found that the problem was that the officers were going beyond simply seeing the car in public. They were tracking its every move for a month, and then analyzing all that data for patterns they never would have seen if they simply spotted the car as it drove by. This act tipped the police officers' acts from reasonable to unreasonable under the law. One of the barometers the Court uses to measure whether an act invades privacy is to compare it to what would have been possible at the time the Constitution was framed, over 200 years ago. Concurring with the US v. Jones decision, Justice Alioto wrote, memorably:

Is it possible to imagine a case in which a constable secreted himself somewhere in a coach and remained there for a period of time in order to monitor the movements of the coach's owner? . . . The Court suggests that something like this might have occurred in 1791, but this would have required either a gigantic coach, a very tiny constable, or both-not to mention a constable with incredible fortitude and patience.

In other words, the kind of public monitoring referred to in the Fourth Amendment does not include monitoring people's every move and analyzing it using surveillance technology.

Given this interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, it's very possible that the government's warrantless use of Trapwire would also be deemed an invasion of privacy.

The Problem With Datamining

Over the past few days, a couple of "debunker" articles have come out in the US media which attempt to explain why Trapwire isn't as harmful as the conspiracy theorists say. Unfortunately, many of these articles have missed the point. They seek to reassure us that Trapwire is harmless because it isn't a secret technology, or because facial recognition technology sucks. Both of those things are true. But in the very act of trying to debunk Trapwire as a dangerous technology, FutureTense's Ryan Gallagher identifies what may be the most troubling part of the system — it's ability to track, aggregate, and automatically analyze surveillance data:

What makes TrapWire stand out is what it does with the stored information. Using algorithms, it is designed to automatically identify "patterns indicative of terrorist activity" at a site-and across various sites-before issuing advance warning that outlines the level of threat to a given location. It does this by, with prior approval of each client, aggregating and analyzing event reports from all facilities that are using the system. The underpinning logic is that terrorists who are going to attack a building or buildings will conduct rigorous planning and surveillance of a target before they attack. This type of reconnaissance activity would, in theory, be logged onto TrapWire by security personnel-triggering a pre-emptive alert if a pattern were detected.

So basically Trapwire stores surveillance information about people across several locations and analyzes them automatically. This kind of tracking and analysis is precisely what the Supreme Court suggested wasn't constitutional in US v. Jones.

One of Trapwire's big proponents is Fred Burton, VP of private intelligence company Stratfor, who described Trapwire like this:

Camera surveillance technology is in my opinion one of the most innovative tools developed since 9-11 to help mitigate terrorist threats. One of the systems known as TrapWire is leading the way in this field.

From a protective intelligence perspective, surveillance technology has the ability to share information on suspicious events or suspects between cities. Operationally, the ability to identify hostile surveillance at one target set - in multiple cities - can be used to neutralize terror threats by interrupting the attack cycle. Meaning, a suspect conducting surveillance of an HVT in one city can also be spotted by TrapWire conducting similar activity in another location, connecting the infamous dots.

It's important to note that Burton said this while trying to sell Trapwire, so he may have exaggerated its capabilities. But if his description is even partly accurate, he is describing an invasion of privacy, where people are being tracked and monitored over time and in different places without a warrant.

Why Trapwire May Be Unconstitutional

More to the point, the behaviors described by Burton could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In US v. Jones, the Supreme Court found that GPS tracking was a "search" that requires a warrant and judicial oversight. If tracking people with a GPS requires a warrant, then surely tracking people with Trapwire should too. Remember, Trapwire isn't just a stationary security camera outside one building. It's a network of surveillance devices that all feed into a database, where agents can analyze a suspect's behavior throughout a city for months.

Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Kurt Opsahl told io9 via email:

We need to get more information to fully analyze the TrapWire situation. However, the information available raises important questions. When surveillance networks become ubiquitous, and capable of tracking individual people over multiple locations, it creates the same Fourth Amendment issues whether done by a GPS tracker (like in U.S. v. Jones) or by a network of cameras, or by other technologies. Regardless of the technology, the government should need a warrant for persistent tracking of individuals.

Chris Conley, a privacy lawyer and technologist with the ACLU of Northern California amplified this sentiment, telling io9 that what might be unconstitutional about Trapwire is the fact that the system essentially follows people around for an unlimited amount of time. It also seems to create profiles of suspicious individuals and activities. Conley explained that it's perfectly legal in most cases for private companies using Trapwire to share all their data with the government. That isn't the problem. The problem is when Trapwire users — government or otherwise — start using that data to track people.

So the question we should be asking about Trapwire is whether this surveillance system is lawful under the Constitution. Right now, it's looking like Trapwire violates the rules of the very government it was invented to serve.

Further Reading:

There is a terrific article that the ACLU has posted, outlining all the other privacy-invading technologies like Trapwire that are already being used throughout the country.

EFF's US v. Jones page

Noah Shachtman has a fascinating investigation over at Danger Room of all the shady business dealings behind the invention and marketing of Trapwire

Photo by SOMATUSCAN via Shutterstock

Number of comments

PC Dev Offering $5,000 Reward To Anyone Who Finds Their Stolen, Unreleased Games

August 15th, 2012Top Story

PC Dev Offering $5,000 Reward To Anyone Who Finds Their Stolen, Unreleased Games

By Jason Schreier
PC Dev Offering $5,000 Reward To Anyone Who Finds Their Stolen, Unreleased GamesPC developer Larian is not having a great time at the Gamescom trade show in Germany this week.

The dev sent us a note to share that two PCs were stolen from their booth at the show. On those PCs were early copies of their upcoming games Dragon Commander and Divinity: Original Sin. Not good!

So they're offering a $5,000 reward to anyone who can help track the stolen goods down. Here's the full message:

Hey folks... this definitely isn't the way we wanted to kick off Gamescom!

Two PCs were stolen from Larian's booth in the business hall at Gamescom, containing early builds of Divinity: Dragon Commander and Divinity: Original Sin.

Larian is offering a $5000 reward for information leading to the identification of the culprit and return of the PCs. We're asking the game community to band together to track these criminals down and to get the games back!

The team is using backup PCs, so no issues there — and if you have an appointment with Larian, there's no change — but if you have any information about the culprits, head to Business Hall 4.2, Booth A-16 to let the team know. Oh, and you might as well stay for a demo.

If you know of any info that can help Larian out, you can reach them on their website.

PC Dev Offering $5,000 Reward To Anyone Who Finds Their Stolen, Unreleased Games Number of comments

The Day My Parents (and I) Found Out My Boobs Were on the Internet

August 15th, 2012Top Story

The Day My Parents (and I) Found Out My Boobs Were on the Internet

By Emma Carmichael

The Day My Parents (and I) Found Out My Boobs Were on the InternetWe received an anonymous personal account this week from a woman who'd read about Reddit's "fusking" of private nude photographs that had been uploaded to PhotoBucket. The tipster had had a similar experience, only with a website we'd never heard of. PinkMeth.com (very NSFW), she wrote, had stolen nude photographs she'd never intended to be made public, and then—adding insult to a privacy breach she might never had known existed otherwise—linked to her Facebook profile so that her identity was matched to the embarrassment.

Here's her story:

One night about a month ago my mother called me, sounding distressed and mortified. "[We received] a very disturbing phone call," she told me. She proceeded to tell me a man, a complete stranger, had called and asked for me, after he'd seen my profile on a website called pinkmeth.com.

There had been a snapshot of my Facebook profile page, featured prominently on this site. The man saw the town my parents were from and looked up their phone number online. He claimed he was acting as a "Good Samaritan" because his own girlfriend had lost her job after pinkmeth posted her naked photos and contact information online. He didn't want it to happen to anyone else.

I nearly died on the other end of the phone. How embarrassing, my parents had seen naked photos of me online, and wanted to know where they came from. I assured them I didn't put them up at all, ended the uncomfortable conversation, and hung up the phone. I immediately started panicking and looked at my featured page on the site. Sure enough, there I was, naked as a jaybird for anyone to see. As if that wasn't bad enough, someone had kindly taken a snapshot of my facebook front page, included a link, and also attached a link to my Google+ profile.

Even more annoying, the photos were from a private, password-protected photobucket account which I had created over five years ago and completely forgotten about. I had put the pictures up to share with my boyfriend. Whoops?

I immediately deleted my photobucket account, changed my full name on facebook (by this point, I already had a half dozen friend requests from weird guys all around the world...) and deleted my Google+ profile. Thank GOD they didn't find my LinkedIn account.

I emailed the site master asking him to take my content down. He replied, minutes later, "Nope!"

I started commenting on my pinkmeth "page" to try and inform other visitors that I did not approve of this content being online. My comments were promptly deleted and my page remained up.

I filed a DMCA complaint upon the suggestion of the man who called my parents, and sent a copy to the sitemaster. Nothing.

Since then, I've done research. I'm not the only one who's upset about this website. There are many other women who have taken similar action with the webmaster and had the same results as I have.

The site totally disgusts me. Not only did they steal MY photos, but they stole naked photos of me, and linked the photos to my personal information. I don't have a problem with an online presence, but being "presented" in this way makes me seem like I'm some type of easy, slutty woman—which I'm not. It calls negative attention to me. The photos were in an album I presumed to be private. I didn't intend on sharing them with the world, only with my boyfriend. It seemed easier than emailing them to him. And, since I don't frequently look at my photobucket (99 percent of my photos are on facebook), I completely forgot they were there until it was too late. I wish I had never put them online in the first place, but hindsight is 20/20.

A friend of mine emailed me the Reddit article about fusking and I realized I wasn't alone. At least, on that site, they kept the girl's private information off. I wasn't so lucky.

Pink Meth's site has a submission form that seems to allow for the same kinds of vindictive entries that made Hunter Moore's now defunct Is Anyone Up so notorious last year. With a few basic (and easily bullshitted) pieces of personal information, anyone is free to submit anyone else's photos. The form also requires an example of "Internet Presence," though it's unclear whether or not it has to be connected to the submitter himself. There's also a key box to check at the end: "Person whose entry I'm submitting to Pinkmeth.com was at least 18 years old at the time when the content was produced."

It's almost an afterthought.

We've emailed whoever's behind Pink Meth to see how they screen their submissions, but judging from our tipster's story, they simply don't. If you have similar stories, let us know.

Number of comments

Why A Rental Car Is The Fastest Car You'll Ever Have

August 15th, 2012Top Story

Why A Rental Car Is The Fastest Car You'll Ever Have

By alex lloyd

Why A Rental Car Is The Fastest Car You'll Ever HaveThe next race of the season was taking place at Sebring Raceway in Florida. It was five in the morning. I brushed my teeth and readied myself for a big day on track. But when you are staying in a hotel full of race team members — all driving rental cars — the battle to the racetrack can sometimes be fiercer than the actual race.

Little did any of us know that this particular morning was going to produce one of the most epic rental car races of all time.

Let's face it, rental cars are cool to drive. After all, they don't belong to us, so we feel a little more relaxed about destroying its four, rock-hard economy tires. I mean, they aren't usually particularly nice cars. In fact, if you are anything like me, most rental cars you will drive have coffee-stained seats, smell of sick and have curly little black hairs presumably left as a gift from the nether regions of the previous renter.

As we leave the hotel, I greet a team member with the obligatory traffic-light bump. He responds with the usual middle finger salute. I'm driving a rather fetching, light-blue Chevy Aveo; he's in an ice white Kia Rio. Both cars cost around $12,000 and each have a mind-blowing amount of horsepower. Roughly 110, actually. Getting from zero to 60 takes about a week and top speed compares to the world's fastest turtle. A few other racers are at the lights, too, also driving some of the worst shitboxes known to man.

What's cool about slow, vomit-infused economy rental cars, is they start to slide when cornering at about six mph. Even when you are just driving normally, the tires screech for mercy. If it's wet, they're Richard Nixon slippery. So you're always having fun. I bet you the tweed-jacketed gentleman driving his Jaguar is having a far less enjoyable drive. Sure, he is surrounded by lush walnut rather than pubic hair, but we are the ones with the big smiles on our faces.

As the lights turn green, of course, the saluting team member stamps on the gas. His little tires spin faster than the legs of Usain Bolt on bath salts. I mimick the maneuver, as do my fellow compatriots behind. It appears we are in a race.

The distance to the track is only a few miles and there isn't another soul on the road this early on a Sunday morning, so it looks like the scene's set for a bit of low-speed, low-risk fun. At the first 90-degree left-hand bend, I throw my Aveo down the inside, after braking a few yards later than he does. Apparently the saluting man (we'll call him Bob) doesn't get the memo that I'm coming through, and he turns directly into my right-side door.

Why A Rental Car Is The Fastest Car You'll Ever HaveMy first thought? Glad I took out the coverage! I look in my rear-view mirror just in time to see a buddy of mine (who shall remain nameless) glissando through the turn way too fast, sliding off the road and into a ditch. I figured he was likely dead, and if not would presumably be eaten by an alligator. So we raced on.

Of course you could argue my explanation on why rental cars are more fun to drive could apply to any cheap cars. But again, rental cars do not belong to you. You do not need to replace the tires, brake pads or live with the damage you will undoubtedly cause by driving like a buffoon. You simply won't drive this way in your own car. Plus, the smudged human excrement adds character that ordinarily wouldn't be there.

I'm side-by-side with Bob, and we're consistently bumping into each other. I notice a car pull up within inches behind me. "Uh oh," I think. He's driving a Ford Focus, a considerably quicker car. I slam on the brakes and he careens into the back of my rental Aveo. Confused and flustered, the man behind stutters and has second thoughts about partaking in the race we were in. While he dithered, I went on after Bob, followed closely by two other team members.

As we approach the final couple of turns, I've reeled in Bob and pulled along a pair of cars to join the battle for rental-car supremacy. I know I need to be smarter than my compatriots, so at the penultimate turn I wait, biding my time. The impatient man behind (in our fictional world named Harry Junior) launches down the inside but doesn't see the curb sticking out and smashes into it, causing his plastic hubcap to shatter into a million shards. I keep to his outside, as he keeps it floored.

Coming into the final bend I go to the inside, but Harry is blocking my way, so I brake as late as I can and try to use the old, "Days of Thunder" technique — driving right around the outside. The two inside of me make contact and for a brief second I think I'm clear. Then, the two cars intertwine and drill me on the right rear, sending us all into a three-way spin towards the entrance of the track.

Once we come to rest, we all pause, looking at our smoking rental cars in disbelief. How did it get this far out of control? The lady at the gate is also looking shocked as we roll on forward and present our hard cards to enter the facility. "Morning boys. Having fun?" she says with a wry smile. My steering wheel is out of sync by about 40 degrees and the right side of the car is destroyed. My buddies' cars are in similar disrepair.

In retrospect, I had more fun that morning than I did in the real race that afternoon. It says a lot that I can have more enjoyment driving a 110-hp rental car than a full-on racecar. After all, nothing is more fun than punishing someone else's car.

(Disclaimer: Professional idiots on an empty road, in cars incapable of going above 30-mph. Please do not try this yourself! Oh, and my buddy in the ditch ended up not dead. He is living a long and healthy life in Indiana, reading this saying, "Lloydy, you bastard!")

About the author: @Alex_Lloyd began racing in the U.S. in 2006. He won the Indy Lights championship in 2007. He's competed in the Daytona 24-hour twice and the Indianapolis 500 four times — placing fourth in 2010. The native of MADchester, UK began racing karts at age 8, open-wheel race cars at 16 and finished second to Formula One World Champion - and close friend - Lewis Hamilton, in the 2003 British Formula Renault Championship, followed by a stint representing Great Britain in A1GP and winning races in Formula 3000. He lives in Indianapolis with his wife Samantha (also from England) and three young "Hoosier" children. He also enjoys racing in triathlons and is rather partial to good old English cup of tea. But not crumpets.

Photo Credit: Getty Images, Anthony Kolesov

Number of comments