Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AOL Allows Dept. of Homeland Security to Spy On Millions of AOL Customers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
spooked Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:38 PM
Original message
AOL Allows Dept. of Homeland Security to Spy On Millions of AOL Customers
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Feedback.asp?nid=361

HOMELAND SEC. SURVEIL ALL AOL FILES

Saturday, October 15, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

by staff reports
The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) claims America OnLine is providing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "unlimited surveillance" of their members, according to the London-based Financial Reporter newspaper. According to a recently released DOC report, "AOL works 'closely' with the DHS to supply information on any AOL customer. It reportedly allows agents from these entities 'free and unfettered' access to AOL Hq. at Dulles, Va. for the purpose of 'watching over and keeping surveillance' … on the millions of AOL customers."

The recent approval by Congress, of the Patriot Act extensions permitting "warrantless searches of persons and property," have apparently provided legal cover for this cooperation. And the Reporter notes, "hile information gleaned from delving into personal computer messages is supposed to be kept confidential, it appears that the DHS has exceeded their brief and obtained what appears to be strictly personal information which is then circulated to entities outside the DHS."

It also quotes the DOC report as stating that since "news of this surveillance has leaked out" it is "causing serious concern in the American and European business communities." However, the DHS has downplayed privacy concerns and claims companies are merely worried that their information will end up in the hands of competitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. I've known this
for quite a while.

Anybody who uses AOL is nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Agreed... Overpriced junk... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Does this go for AIM as well?
Edited on Sun Oct-16-05 12:20 PM by FreedomAngel82
My brother told me that AIM conversations can be viewed if they seem necessary. I'm just glad my family doesn't have Aol anymore. But there is no excuse for this though. Spying on people is just ridiculous. And of course we know they're probably spying on "left wing" people and such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder what other companies are "cooperating"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuCifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Hey aol, SPY ON THIS!
LICK ME AOL!

Does this include AIM!? If so, FUKU AIM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Now that would be good to know! Geeze... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepper32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Good question
I need to cancel Aol, ASAP! However, where do I go? I'm thinking Comcast, do they spy on their customers as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. I'm not sure
But a while back Comcast deleted Emails dealing with an anti-war ordeal going on. Rally or something. It was posted on BradBlog when it happened. I use Comcast but I use webbased Email with yahoo. I've never had any problems with them and for my internet explorer I use Mozilla.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. Be your own ISP.
Book a connection from phone company.
Book bandwidth from a local ISP.
Register a domain
Host your own mail server
Host your own DNS server
Use open source software

Freedom is available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. How . . .
. . . do you host your own mail server and DNS server?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. For example: BIND and Sendmail on Linux.
Edited on Sat Oct-15-05 10:06 PM by longship
Sendmail takes five minutes to configure and zero maintenance, BIND, a little longer, and next to zero maintenance.

And there are alternatives to these. There's even alternatives to Linux (but not Windows--would you trust it?).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSPS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. That's no help
Edited on Sat Oct-15-05 10:06 PM by PSPS
As long as you're using the internet for traffic, it can be intercepted regardless of whose mail server you use. They just dial your IP address (available from your ISP at any time, so a dynamic address provides no protection) into their giant packet sniffer (Eschelon) and, voila! They receive all the traffic you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. True, but that's why I use GnuPG
Encryption that even they can't easily break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Commercial encription? Might as well wave a red flag & shout, Here I Am
Edited on Sun Oct-16-05 12:13 PM by leveymg
Do you have any idea how many Terabytes the NSA has in its Sigint processors?

Why draw attention to yourself? Just assume that Michael Chertoff is in the room with you, and proceed accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I'm pretty sure
Edited on Sun Oct-16-05 12:33 PM by longship
that the NSA isn't going to be wasting their computer horsepower to read my encrypted e-mails. If they are, then they are wasting their money.

Also, GnuPG is not "commercial" encryption. It is a peer-reviewed open source product which is cutting edge encryption.

I work for a company developing information which is proprietary. Encryption is required to keep that info out of the general public's hands. I can't do my job without it.

If the NSA wants to waste time and money decrypting technical certification exams, let them do it. Maybe it'll end up being my way of throwing a small monkey wrench into their system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. well, actually, they do
it is just that they have super duper filters to ignore the stuff they deem as pointless. or not damaging. But do they store it just in case? sure. Memory's cheap.

If you think our PC or MAC based AI programs are nifty, imagine what 20 years, and 50 Brazilian dollars can do for your technology.

Their biggest problem is not that, but how to sort the terabytes of stuff they gather. we are talking entire libaries of material each day. Finding the thread that is key is the hard part.

Now as for encryption, yeah the commercial programs are great for, say, commercial issues, or keeping your child, your girlfriend's husband or your wife from finding out something. But NSA? yeah. right. hardly.

If you want true security, you meet in person, exchange one copy of a diagram, (a more advanced version of one time use keypad) and decide on which day which book or volume you will use. From there, sending an unbreakable message is easy, just timeconsuming and it must be done WITHOUT YOUR COMPUTER. (Heck, they now have a listening device that can read what is on your screen by its EM signature AND have programs that can figure out what you typed by the distinctive differences in the sounds your individual keys make. )

That diagram is your one time pad. You determine the frequency and a few other elements ahead of time. Then, you find the message you wish to send in a novel, dictionary, encyclopedia or even a cook book, and select the necessary words. then, assign - never mind. however, the beauty is that the message you send by email will not contain the actual message you wish to transmit. Instead, it provides your reader with a message which must be looked at as a vehicle transporting a series of letters to the recipient, and from those letters, it becomes the template for your fairly easy reconstruction of the message.
Although it can be done easier on computer, the minute you store that message or the template or the source, you risk losing all privacy.
There are some more sophisticated methods using JPG, HTLM and other methods that hide the template in the open, but totally unreadable to the feds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepper32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Well, anyone using Windows is vulnerable regardless...
Edited on Sat Oct-15-05 11:18 PM by Pepper32
NSA BACKDOOR IN EVERY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM

How NSA access was built into Windows
Careless mistake reveals subversion of Windows by NSA.

By Duncan Campbell

A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows. The NSA access system is built into every version of the Windows operating system now in use, except early releases of Windows 95 (and its predecessors). The discovery comes close on the heels of the revelations earlier this year that another US software giant, Lotus, had built an NSA "help information" trapdoor into its Notes system, and that security functions on other software systems had been deliberately crippled. The first discovery of the new NSA access system was made two years ago by British researcher Dr Nicko van Someren. But it was only a few weeks ago when a second researcher rediscovered the access system. With it, he found the evidence linking it to NSA.

Computer security specialists have been aware for two years that unusual features are contained inside a standard Windows software "driver" used for security and encryption functions. The driver, called ADVAPI.DLL, enables and controls a range of security functions. If you use Windows, you will find it in the C:\Windows\system directory of your computer.

ADVAPI.DLL works closely with Microsoft Internet Explorer, but will only run crypographic functions that the US governments allows Microsoft to export. That information is bad enough news, from a European point of view. Now, it turns out that ADVAPI will run special programmes inserted and controlled by NSA. As yet, no-one knows what these programmes are, or what they do. Dr Nicko van Someren reported at last year's Crypto 98 conference that he had disassembled the ADVADPI driver. He found it contained two different keys. One was used by Microsoft to control the cryptographic functions enabled in Windows, in compliance with US export regulations. But the reason for building in a second key, or who owned it, remained a mystery.

A second key

Two weeks ago, a US security company came up with conclusive evidence that the second key belongs to NSA. Like Dr van Someren, Andrew Fernandez, chief scientist with Cryptonym of Morrisville, North Carolina, had been probing the presence and significance of the two keys. Then he checked the latest Service Pack release for Windows NT4, Service Pack 5. He found that Microsoft's developers had failed to remove or "strip" the debugging symbols used to test this software before they released it. Inside the code were the labels for the two keys. One was called "KEY". The other was called "NSAKEY". Fernandes reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny that the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without
users' knowledge. A third key?!

But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders. The latest discovery by Dr van Someren is based on advanced search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming code.

Within the Microsoft organisation, access to Windows source code is said to be highly compartmentalized, making it easy for modifications to be inserted without the knowledge of even the respective product managers.

<snip>

That they have also installed a cryptographic back-door in the world's most abundant operating system should send a strong message to foreign IT managers". "How is an IT manager to feel when they learn that in every copy of Windows sold, Microsoft has a 'back door' for NSA - making it orders of magnitude easier for the US government to access your computer?" he asked.

Can the loophole be turned round against the snoopers?

Dr van Someren feels that the primary purpose of the NSA key inside Windows may be for legitimate US government use. But he says that there cannot be a legitimate explanation for the third key in Windows 2000 CAPI. "It looks more fishy", he said.

Fernandez believes that NSA's built-in loophole can be turned round against the snoopers. The NSA key inside CAPI can be replaced by your own key, and used to sign cryptographic security modules from overseas or unauthorised third parties, unapproved by Microsoft or the NSA. This is exactly what the US government has been trying to prevent. A demonstration "how to do it" program that replaces the NSA key can be found on Cryptonym's _website_ (http://www.cryptonym.com/hottopics/msft-nsa/ReplaceNsaKey.zip) . According to one leading US cryptographer, the IT world should be thankful that the subversion of Windows by NSA has come to light before the arrival of CPUs that handles encrypted instruction sets. These would make the type of discoveries made this month impossible. "Had the next-generation CPU's with encrypted instruction sets already been deployed, we would have never found out about NSAKEY."
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5263/1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. That's why I use Linux
There's no backdoors in any of the software I run. I can know that because source code is available for all of it and it is all peer-reviewed by the best in the business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. AOL is EVIL
I knew this back in '84 when my first bill showed up and it was $150.

Spawn of Satan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Conservativesux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Dont use the Netscape ISP either. Its owned by AOL. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. Mostly the only people left on AOL these days
are senior citizens still getting used to the new-fangled innernets, barely sentient Bush supporters, and folks who are unable to cancel their accounts because AOL deliberately makes getting out of their sucky-ass service an escape trick worthy of Houdini himself.

No, AOL sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. your characterization is a little off...
I've been on AOL for ten years. While it is true that a lot of people have left AOL over the years as alternatives proliferated, it is also true that many professionals retain the service simply because they don't want to change e-mail addies. Some of our favorite liberal journalists, for example, retain AOL addresses.

And political polls on AOL generally reflect a left-leaning membership these days, whereas five years ago they were overwhelmingly skewed to the right. AOL's message boards used to be the playground of angry white young conservative men. Now one is more likely to see lefties smashing the right.

And gawd almighty, the place has a huge share of teenagers and college kids populating its chat rooms.

I'm not nutty about AOL. I just don't think it's what you say it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Hey, I suffered through with them for years.
Until we needed to be able to get a VPN connection through AOL's "lightning fast" DSL service. Then, surprise! No can do. So I got an alternate DSL provider, and lo and behold, the speed is easily three times as fast- over the EXACT SAME lines, etc. And the cost was less.

So I go to cancel my AOL account over the phone, and after trying for an hour to cancel, they wouldn't let me- literally. I've had relationships with obsessive stalker women that were easier to end than my AOL account. Nuts.

I just think their service blows, from my experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. yeah, I'm paying for AOL bring your own access...
...plus DSL from the phone company. The AOL BYO is fifteen bucks. The only reason I continue with an AOL account is because I've made a lot of friends there over the years. I use IE for browsing, usually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tamtam Donating Member (450 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
16. Not surprised
AOL took money from my credit card illegally and now I'm involved in a class action lawsuit against them. I wouldn't use AOL if they gave me free service for the rest of my life because they would find a way to double charge me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
21. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
23. AOL has always sucked--hope stragglers get out soon!
I'm sure other companies have similar deals with the government, but honestly, haven't we always known AOL blows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tlsmith1963 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
27. Wow...Am I Glad I Dumped AOL!
It wasn't that great, anyway. Very overrated. But Michael Moore has an AOL e-mail address. Does he know about the HS spying?

Tammy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourStarDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
28. I've never trusted AOL and recommend that users dump them.
Ever since I got online back in '95 I've heard dozens of stories and complaints from users about lack of privacy that aol provides. I used them for the first couple of months and was horrifed by their service, and lack of customer support. I vowed never to use them again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC