What's next? Is Boing Boing going to publicize methods for bribing police officers to look the other way when one wants to commit a robbery? Or, how to avoid DNA tests when committing a rape?
This particular "HOWTO" is innocuous and, likely, stupid, but Boing Boing's predilection for publishing tips on breaking the law is disturbing.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An eclectic blog: anti-Left, ambivalent about the Right, and rabidly pro-Objectivist, this blog covers the issues of the day whatever they may be
About Me
Places to Go
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(1082)
-
▼
May
(269)
-
▼
May 26
(18)
- And an untold number of cures for human diseases w...
- Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a light 2588 Digg...
- Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart? Brad Pitt as John...
- And, as munipalities fail in their very highly-tou...
- Tron was definitely ahead of its time, and got me ...
- I think Jericho was a decent show, starting and (s...
- A reminder: Ayn Rand audio recordings are availabl...
- I thought Apples were immune to attack. Apparently...
- Parts of this story seem to contradict the story l...
- "We don't want a one-sided truce." That's funny. I...
- Of course Iran is suddenly identifying American "s...
- Are the Chinese smart enough to be using economics...
- I don't know if people appreciate this sort of thi...
- Here's a story about a home-schooled girl winning ...
- It would seem that the only culture Leftists are c...
- What's next? Is Boing Boing going to publicize met...
- Celebrity Alert: It's unfortunate that Bruce Willi...
- I've long believed that Bill Clinton's real crime ...
-
▼
May 26
(18)
-
▼
May
(269)
4 comments:
It can't be denied that Boing Boing is anti-establishment, and so it's not unreasonable to suppose that the referenced post is related to government wiretaps. Nevertheless, wiretaps represent a legitimate method of law enforcement (the fact that they can be misused is irrelevant in this context; all legitimate methods of law enforcement can be misused), and so publishing methods for bypassing them will necessarily appeal to those who are truly breaking the law.
Failing to recognize this is irresponible on Boing Boing's part, which is the meaning of my post. Anyone with legitimate concerns about illegal wiretapping should go to the relevant authorities for advice and assistance in dealing with it--not Boing Boing.
Well, there's a difference between a wiretap, where the actual conversation is intercepted, and the phone record that the telcoms maintain, which is just the number called, etc. The latter is valuable only in establishing connections between people, and while that can be helpful in identifying who's involved with crimes, terrorism, etc., it doesn't say anything about what people are talking about. It's also just one of the vagaries of a highly technological society, and to me isn't very meaningful.
I don't agree that only private parties perform wiretapping. I'm pretty sure that law enforcement still does so, in certain instances, although I can acknowledge that it's likely not nearly so effective. There are certainly so many more ways that people can communicate today that the phone has become almost extraneous. I don't know the actual statistics, though, and so I'll let that one lie.
I agree about Boing Boing. They consider themselves many things.
The original article was written specifically about law enforcement wiretaps. In fact it won't work at all on non-police-type wiretaps. The orginal article (pdf link here) makes this clear. What I want to know is why these so called researchers are looking at wiretap countermeasures in the first place. They should be thrown in jail.
Harry, thanks for the information. I'm not sure that I agree that the researchers themselves deserve to go to jail; it looks like they're pointing out that the systems currently in use by law enforcement are flawed and susceptible to countermeasures. That's reasonable and valuable work, I think, and contributes to improvements in the systems.
Boing Boing publishing the information, in particular without any context, is another matter entirely. A great deal of information is available on the Internet that's not for mass consumption, and could sit there harmlessly for years without a site like Boing Boing making hay with it.
As to Malgwyn's comment, it doesn't change things that systems exist that can record actual conversations en masse as opposed to merely provide opportunities for data mining. Criminals exist and are becoming increasingly technologically sophisticated; finding and catching them a primary legitimate government function, and I have no problem with any and all efforts in this regard.
Furthermore, he contradicts his earlier comment, where he implies that it's not government agencies that are doing the wiretapping, but rather private agencies.
Post a Comment