slight paranoia

Congressmen pushing awful cybersecurity bill fail cybersecurity 101

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:36:00 +0000

Over the last several months, several cybersecurity bills have been proposed by various Congressional committees. One of the leading bills, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), has been proposed by Congressmen Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). Many of the major civil liberties groups like EFF and ACLU have legitimately criticized the substance of the bill, which would give companies a free pass to share their customers' private information with the government.

I'm not going to get into the weeds and criticize specific portions of this bill. Instead, I want to make a broader point - Congress knows absolutely nothing about cybersecurity, and quite simply, until it knows more, and starts leading by example, it has no business forcing its wishes on the rest of us.

Congressmen Rogers and Ruppersberger are, respectively, the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Although it is no secret that most members of Congress do not have technologists on staff providing them with policy advice, we can at least hope that the two most senior members of the Intelligence Committee have in-house technical advisors with specific expertise in the area of information security. After all, without such subject area expertise, it boggles the mind as to how they can at least evaluate and then put their names on the cybersecurity legislation that was almost certainly ghostwritten by other parts of the government - specifically, the National Security Agency.

So, given that these two gentlemen feel comfortable forcing their own view of cybersecurity on the rest of the public, I thought it would be useful to look at whether or not they practice what they preach. Specifically, how is their own information security. While I am not (for legal reasons) going to perform any kind of thorough audit of the two members' websites or email systems, even the most cursory evaluation is pretty informative.

HTTPS and Congressional websites

HTTPS encryption is the most basic form of security that websites should use - providing not only confidentiality, but also authentication and integrity, so that visitors to a site can be sure they are indeed communicating with the site they believe they are visiting. All big banks and financial organizations use HTTPS by default, Google has used it for Gmail since January 2010, and even the CIA and NSA websites use HTTPS by default (even though there is absolutely nothing classified on either of the two spy agency public sites). Some in Congress have even lectured companies about their lack of default HTTPS encryption - one year ago, Senator Schumer wrote to several major firms including Yahoo and Amazon, telling them that "providers of major websites have a responsibility to protect individuals who use their sites and submit private information. It’s my hope that the major sites will immediately put in place secure HTTPS web addresses.”

It is now 2012. HTTPS is no longer an obscure feature used by a few websites. It is an information security best practice and increasingly becoming the default across the industry. It is therefore alarming that not only do Congressional websites not offer HTTPS by default, but most members' websites don't support HTTPS at all.

Rogers

For example, the webserver running Congressman Mike Rogers's website seems to support HTTPS, however, attempting to visit https://mikerogers.house.gov/ (or https://www.mikerogers.house.gov/) will result in a certificate error.

This is perhaps a bit better than Congressman Roger's campaign website, which does not appear to be running a HTTPS webserver at all. Attempting to visit https://www.mikerogersforcongress.com/ results in a connection error.

Ruppersberger

When I manually tried to visit the HTTPS URL for Congressman Ruppersberger's website last night, it instead redirected me to the Congressional Caucus on Intellectual Property Promotion. Soon after I called the Congressman's office this morning to question his team's cybersecurity skills, the site stopped redirecting visitors, and now instead displays a misconfiguration error.

Congressman Dutch's campaign webserver appears to support HTTPS, but returns a certificate error.

Congressional websites could do HTTPS

While most Congressional websites return HTTPS certificate errors, the problems largely seem to be configuration issues. The webserver that runs all of the house.gov websites is listening on port 443 and it looks like Akamai has issued a wildcart *.house.gov certificate that can be used to secure any Congressional website. As an example, Nancy Pelosi's website supports HTTPS without any certificate errors (although it looks like there is some non-HTTPS encrypted content delivered from that page too.) This means that the Congressional IT staff can enable HTTPS encryption for Rogers, Ruppersberger and every other member without having to buy any new HTTPS certificates or setting up new webservers. The software is already all there - and the fact that these sites do not work over HTTPS connections already suggests that no one in the members' offices have asked for it. After all, if Nancy Pelosi's site can offer a secure experience, other members of Congress should be able to get similar protections too.

Remember SOPA

During the SOPA debate several months ago, a few members seemed to take pride in acknowledging their total ignorance regarding technology, proclaiming that they were not nerds, didn't understand the Internet, but even so still thought that SOPA was a good bill. Those members were justifiably ridiculed for ignoring technical experts while voting for legislation that would significantly and negatively impact the Internet.

Here, we have members who've not even bothered to ask the Congressional IT staff to make sure that their website support HTTPS, let alone use it by default, who are now telling the rest of the country that we should trust their judgement on the complex topic of cybersecurity.

Until the respective Congressional committees that deal with technology issues actually hire subject matter experts, any legislation they propose will lack legitimacy and, most likely, will probably be ineffective. Likewise, if Congress thinks that cybersecurity is a priority, perhaps it should lead by example.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Google's pro-privacy legal position re: DOJ could assist class action lawyers in search referrer privacy lawsuit

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:28:00 +0000

In the summer of 2010, I filed a FTC complaint (pdf) against Google for deceiving its users about the extent to which it knowingly leaks user search queries to third parties via the referring header sent by web browsers. Shortly after my complaint was made public, a class action firm hit Google with a lawsuit over the practice.

Like many privacy class actions, the lawyers included every possible legal argument they could think of. One of their claims was that Google had violated the Stored Communications Act, which prohibits companies from sharing the contents of users' communications contents with other parties (even law enforcement agencies, unless they have a warrant).

The federal judge assigned to the case recently threw out all but one of the class action firm's claims, but but has permitted the case to continue solely focusing on Google's alleged violations of the Stored Communications Act. As such, one of the next big, important issues that the court is going to have to address is determining whether or not search queries are considered communications content under the Stored Communications Act.

As law professor Eric Goldman recently observed, "the SCA's poor drafting means that no one (including the judges) knows exactly what's covered by the statute." This is certainly true, and made worse by the fact that the statute hasn't really been updated since it was passed in 1986, long before the first web search engine or referrer header. It is for this very reason that DOJ has argued that the government should be able to get search engine query data without a warrant. Thankfully, Google disagrees.

Google: Search queries are content

At a recent event at San Francisco Law School, Richard Salgado, Google's Director of Law Enforcement and Information Security spoke publicly (for the first time) about Google's aggressively pro-privacy legal position on search queries and government access:

As far as search warrants and content go, Google and I think a lot of providers are taking this position, sees the 4th amendment particularly as it has been applied in the Warshak cases, as establishing that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy such that disclosure of the contents held with the third party is protected by the 4th Amendment. And not limited to email, but other material that is uploaded to the service provider to be handled by the service provider.

You hear a lot about ECPA about electronic communications service, ECS and remote computing sevice, RCS, and the crazy rules that apply [for example], the 180 day rule. I think most providers now, although I really should only speak to Google, view the way the case law is going and certaininly viewing the 4th Amendment as applying to any content that is provided by the user to the service, so that, for Google, would include things like Calendar and Docs, and all those others, even where there is not a communication function going on, that there's not another party involved in the Doc that you're uploading, the notes that you're keeping for yourself. It's still material that you've put with the service provider as part of the service that the company, in this case Google, is holding on your behalf. Its our view that that is protected by the 4th amendment, and unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement apply, its not to be disclosed to a government entity as a matter of compulsion.

Question: Where does search fall in that?

Answer: Search is one where we take a pretty hard stance, the same with other material, so we view search that its provided to us the way that other information is provided to us. That is very consistent with the ligitiation with the Department of Justice back in 2006.

Now, it seems pretty clear that Salgado is primarily talking about Google's view that the 4th Amendment protects user search queries, and is not arguing that they are communications content under the Stored Communications Act. Prior to this public event, I had heard reliable rumors that Google had adopted a warrant position for search queries based on the Stored Communications Act. Perhaps my sources were wrong, or perhaps Google realizes that it is going to be difficult to simultaneously argue two different positions on search engine queries and the SCA.

Even so, I suspect Google's legal team is still going to have a difficult time convincing the judge in this case that search engine queries are private enough for the company to repeatedly argue that they deserve warrant protections under the 4th Amendment, yet not private enough to deserve protections under the Stored Communications Act's prohibition against sharing communications content.

After all, as Al Gidari, Google's top privacy outside lawyer himself said at Brookings last year:

"[C]ontent is content, I don’t care how many times you try to repackage it into something else, content is still content, and the standards that we try to apply that give lesser protection to that content inevitably falls short, as well, when people stop and think about it."

ACLU docs reveal real-time cell phone location spying is easy and cheap

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 16:25:00 +0000

"Technological progress poses a threat to privacy by enabling an extent of surveillance that in earlier times would have been prohibitively expensive."
-- US v. Garcia, 474 F. 3d 994 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2007

In 2009, I attended a surveillance industry trade show (the "wiretapper's ball") in Washington DC where I recorded an executive from Sprint describing, in depth, the location tracking capabilities his company provided to law enforcement agencies:

"[M]y major concern is the volume of requests. We have a lot of things that are automated but that's just scratching the surface. One of the things, like with our GPS tool. We turned it on the web interface for law enforcement about one year ago last month, and we just passed 8 million requests. So there is no way on earth my team could have handled 8 million requests from law enforcement, just for GPS alone. So the tool has just really caught on fire with law enforcement. They also love that it is extremely inexpensive to operate and easy, so, just the sheer volume of requests they anticipate us automating other features, and I just don't know how we'll handle the millions and millions of requests that are going to come in.
-- Paul Taylor, Electronic Surveillance Manager, Sprint Nextel.

The information that I gathered was one of the first real data points revealing the scale and ease with which law enforcement and intelligence agencies can now collect real-time location data from wireless phone carriers. This is because unlike wiretaps, there are no annual statistics produced by the courts that detail the number of location surveillance orders issued each year.

My disclosure of this information led to significant news coverage, but also to a citation from Judge Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, who observed in dissent in U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno that:

When requests for cell phone location information have become so numerous that the telephone company must develop a self-service website so that law enforcement agents can retrieve user data from the comfort of their desks, we can safely say that "such dragnet-type law enforcement practices" are already in use.

ACLU FOIA docs reveal other carriers have followed Sprint's lead

It appears that Sprint is not the only wireless company to provide law enforcement agencies with an easy way to track the location of targets in real-time.

Among the 5500 pages of documents obtained by the ACLU as part of a nationwide FOIA effort, are a few pages from Tucson AZ detailing (or at least hinting at) the real-time location tracking services provided to the government by the major wireless carriers.

AT&T's Electronic Surveillance Fee Schedule reveals that the company offers an "E911 Tool" to government agencies, which it charges $100 to activate, and then $25 per day to use.

While it is no secret that Sprint provides law enforcement agencies subscriber real-time GPS data via its "L-Site" website (read the L-site manual), Sprint's Electronic Surveillance Fee Schedule reveals that the company charges just $30 per month for access to this real-time data.

The documents from T-Mobile provides by far the greatest amount of information about the company's real-time location tracking capabilities. The company's Locator Tool service, which it charges law enforcement agencies $100 per day to access, generates pings at customizable 15 / 30/ 60 minute intervals, after which, the real-time location information is emailed directly to the law enforcement agency.

Unfortunately, Verizon's surveillance pricing sheets do not reveal any information about GPS tracking. It is almost certain that the company does provide real-time location data, but for now, we don't know how it is provided, or at what cost.

Federal judge: Google free to tell user about mysterious gov requests, likely related to Wikileaks

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:13:00 +0000

Summary

In two 1-page orders issued today, a Federal judge in Virginia has (for a second time) ruled that Google is permitted to tell a customer (and only that customer) about two mysterious surveillance orders -- a 2703(d) order and a search warrant -- issued in June, 2011 for records (likely including communications content) associated with their Google account.

While Google is only permitted to notify the subscriber that was the subject of surveillance, that person is permitted to tell anyone else they wish, should they wish to do so.

Background

One month ago, a federal judge published two (pdf) orders (pdf) [hereafter the February 2012 orders], related to two previously secret surveillance orders obtained in June, 2011 by the government seeking data about a Google subscriber. In the two February 2012 orders, the judge ruled that Google could tell the user about the earlier surveillance orders.

Soon after, the government filed a motion with the court, seeking to clarify whether Google could tell any person about the orders, or merely the impacted user.

In the two orders issued today, the judge seems to have been convinced by the government's clarifying motion. Thus, in 14 days (unless the government appeals), Google will be free to tell the impacted user (and no one else) about the June 2011 surveillance orders.

This may involve Wikileaks

When Jeff Rollins at PaidContent first highlighted the existence of these two mysterious court orders, he suggested that they might be related to the Megaupload investigation. The Megaupload connection was mere speculation on his part (as he acknowledged), as there simply isn't anything solid in those two brief court orders that identifies a particular target.

However, for the reasons I outline below, I believe that these surveillance orders are actually related to the investigation of to Wikileaks.

First, in one of the February 2012 orders (page 2), the judge noted that "[t]he existence of the investigation in issue and the government’s wide use of § 2703(d) orders and other investigative tools has been widely publicized now."

The only high-profile federal investigation that I can think of in recent times involving 2703(d) orders is the government's investigation of individuals associated with Wikileaks. That is, while the Megaupload indictment was also filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, there has been little publicity surrounding the actual investigative legal instruments used in the case.

Specifically, I've not seen any published media report indicating that a 2703(d) order was used in that investigation. In contrast, the 2703(d) order issued to Twitter as part of the Wikileaks investigation has itself been a major story, as have the (failed) efforts of the ACLU, EFF and others to quash the order.

In December 2010, a judge from the same court issued a 2703(d) order to Twitter, forcing the company to disclose information about several users associated with Wikileaks. A month later, the Twitter judge agreed to unseal that order, allowing Twitter to notify the impacted individuals. Once existence of the surveillance order was made public, the media went crazy.

The Wall Street Journal later revealed that Google and California broadband provider Sonic had received similar requests as part of the same investigation. At the time of the WSJ report, those surveillance orders remained sealed.

Second, one persistent rumor in Washington DC over the past year has been that one of the main reasons DOJ has cited justifying the continued sealing of the Wikileaks/Google/Sonic orders is a fear of harassment from the Internet community directed at the prosecutors involved in the case.

As the WSJ revealed earlier this year, the address of Tracy Doherty McCormick, the prosecutor whose name was on the original Twitter order "was spread online, and the person's email account [tracy.mccormick@usdoj.gov] was subscribed to a pornography site." According to the unnamed officials quoted by the WSJ, she was also "bombarded with harassing phone calls."

The WSJ also reported that fear of similar harassment led "the government to take the rare step of keeping officials' names out of news releases and public statements when the government shut down the website Megaupload.com." It is likely that similar fears were the reason that no prosecutors names were listed in the recently published Lulzsec indictments.

Why do I mention this? Well, the two orders issued by the judge today specifically state that Google may share a copy of the 2703(d) order and search warrant with the impacted subscriber, but that the email address and name of the attesting official must be redacted first.

This suggests that someone at DOJ has told the judge they are fearful of retaliation from the Internet community -- thus also suggesting that this surveillance is related to a high-profile investigation of a target to whom Anonymous and other Internet activists may feel some sympathy. While this certainly could be the Megaupload case, I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that this involves Wikileaks.

Firefox switching to HTTPS Google search by default (and the end of referrer leakage)

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:10:00 +0000

A few days ago, Mozilla's developers quietly enabled Google's HTTPS encrypted search as the default search service for the "nightly" developer trunk of the Firefox browser (it will actually use the SPDY protocol). This change should reach regular users at some point in the next few months.

This is a big deal for the 25% or so of Internet users who use Firefox to browse the web, bringing major improvements in privacy and security.

First, the search query information from these users will be shielded from their Internet service providers and governments who might be using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) equipment to monitor the activity of users or censor and filter search results.

Second, the search query information will also be shielded from the websites that consumer visit after conducting a search. This information is normally leaked via the "referrer header". Google has in the past gone out of its way to facilitate referrer header based data leakage (which led to me filing a FTC complaint against the firm in 2010).

However, in October 2011, Google turned on HTTPS search by default for signed-in users, and at the same time, began scrubbing the search query from the non-HTTPS URL that HTTPS users are redirected to (and that subsequently leaks via the referrer header) before they reach the destination website:

Over the next few weeks, many of you will find yourselves redirected to https://www.google.com (note the extra “s”) when you’re signed in to your Google Account. This change encrypts your search queries and Google’s results page....
What does this mean for sites that receive clicks from Google search results? When you search from https://www.google.com, websites you visit from our organic search listings will still know that you came from Google, but won't receive information about each individual query.

At the time of the announcement, Google told the search engine optimization (SEO) industry (a community that very much wants to be able to continue to passively receive this kind of detailed user data) that the percentage of users whose search queries would be shielded would be a "single digit" -- and thus, at least 90% of Google users would still continue to unknowingly leak their search queries as they browse the web.

Shortly after Google's October announcement, search engine industry analyst Danny Sullivan told the SEO community that the days of referrer leakage were doomed:

By the future is clear. Referrer data is going away from search engines, and likely from other web sites, too. It’s somewhat amazing that we’ve had it last this long, and it will be painful to see that specific, valuable data disappear.
But from a consumer perspective, it’s also a better thing to do. As so much more moves online, referrers can easily leak out the location of things like private photos. Google’s move is part of a trend of blocking that already started and ultimately may move into the browsers themselves.

It looks like Danny was right.

Google's October 2011 decision to start proactively scrubbing search queries from the referrer header was a great first step, but a small percentage of Google's search users benefited. Now that Mozilla is switching to HTTPS search, hundreds of millions of Firefox users will have their privacy protected, by default.

The only surprising aspect to this otherwise great bit of good news is that the first major browser to use HTTPS search is Firefox and not Chrome. I reasonably assumed that as soon as Google's pro-privacy engineers and lawyers won the internal battle over those in the company sympathetic to needs of the SEO community, that Google's flagship browser would have been the first to ship HTTPS by default.

Just as it showed strong privacy leadership by being the first browser to embrace Do Not Track, Mozilla is similarly showing its users that privacy is a priority by being the first to embrace HTTPS search by default. For Mozilla, this is a clear win. For the Chrome team, whose browser has otherwise set the gold standard for security (and who have proposed and implemented a mechanism to enable websites to limit referrer leakage), this must be extremely frustrating and probably quite embarrassing. Hopefully, they will soon follow Mozilla's lead by protecting their users with HTTPS search by default.

(Just to be clear - the ultimate decision to enable HTTPS search by default was largely in the hands of Google's search engineers, who are responsible for dealing with the increased traffic. Mozilla's privacy team deserves the credit for pressuring Google, and Google's search engine team deserve a big pat on the back for agreeing to cope with encrypted searches from hundreds of millions of users.)

FBI seeks warrant to force Google to unlock Android phone

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:47:00 +0000

Today, I stumbled across a recent FBI application and accompanying affidavit for a search warrant ordering Google to unlock a screen-locked Android phone. The application asks Google to: "provide law enforcement with any and all means of gaining access, including login and password information, password reset, and/or manufacturer default code ("PUK"), in order to obtain the complete contents of the memory" of a seized phone.

The phone in question was seized from a gentleman named Dante Dears, a founding member of the "Pimpin' Hoes Daily" street gang. On January 17, 2012, a cellphone was seized from Dears by an FBI agent, who then obtained a search warrant to look through the device. According to the affidavit, the technicians at the FBI Regional Computer Forensics Lab (RCFL) were unable to get past the electronic "pattern lock" access controls protecting the phone (apparently, entering multiple incorrect unlock sequences will lock the memory of the phone, which can then only be accessed by entering the user's Gmail username and password).

So why is this interesting and noteworthy?

First, it suggests that the FBI's computer forensics lab in Southern California is unable, or unwilling to use commercially available forensics tools or widely documented hardware-hacking techniques to analyze seized phones and download the data from them.

Second, it suggests that a warrant might be enough to get Google to unlock a phone. Presumably, this is not the first time that the FBI has requested Google unlock a phone, so one would assume that the FBI would request the right kind of order. However, we do not know if Google has complied with the request. Given that an unlocked smartphone will continue to receive text messages and new emails (transmitted after the device was first seized), one could reasonably argue that the government should have to obtain a wiretap order in order to unlock the phone.

Third, on page 13 of the warrant application, the government asks that the owner of the phone not be told about the government's request to unlock his phone. It is surprising then that the warrant and the associated affidavit have not been sealed by the court.

Do Not Track: First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:18:00 +0000

In July of 2009, my friend and research collaborator Sid Stamm helped me to put together a prototype Firefox add-on that added two headers to outgoing HTTP requests:

X-Behavioral-Ad-Opt-Out: 1
X-Do-Not-Track: 1

The idea for the Do Not Track header came from a conversation I'd had with security researcher Dan Kaminsky in March of 2009.

A few months after we released the DNT prototype, I started working at the FTC. Once there, Ashkan Soltani and I evangelized the header-based mechanism as a superior solution to the flawed opt-out cookies that the industry had grudgingly delivered. In December 2010, the FTC issued a privacy report that called for a "do not track" system that would enable people to avoid having their actions monitored online.

Today, the Obama Administration, the FTC and the advertising industry will announce that the last remaining web browser (Chrome) will support the Do Not Track header, and that the major online advertising networks will look for and respect it.

The total time, from the first conversation about the concept to a White House press conference announcing broad industry support? 3 years. Decades in Internet time, but this is extremely quick by Washington, DC standards.

First they ignore you:

In mid July 2009, the Future of Privacy Forum organized a meeting and conference call in which I pitched the header concept to a bunch of industry players, public interest groups, and other interested parties. I was perhaps slightly over-dramatic when I told them that the "day of reckoning was coming", for opt out cookies, and that it was time to embrace a header based mechanism...none of the advertising firms showed any interest in the header.

Then they laugh at you:

[Microsoft Vice President Dean] Hachamovitch said it’s naive to simply trust that the tracking sites will obey an anti-tracking signal. “We don’t have ‘do not send me pop-up window’ HTTP headers,” said Hachamovitch, speaking at UC Berkeley. “We just have pop-up blockers.” Similarly, he noted, there’s no “Do Not Phish Me” button on browsers.

Then they fight you:

The Interactive Advertising Bureau, which represents online advertisers, said "there is currently no definition" of what advertisers should do when receiving the do-not-track notification. "It's like sending a smoke signal in the middle of Manhattan; it might draw a lot of attention, but no one knows how to read the message," said Mike Zaneis, senior vice president of the organization.

Then you win:

A coalition of Internet giants including Google Inc. has agreed to support a do-not-track button to be embedded in most Web browsers—a move that the industry had been resisting for more than a year.

How long does it take for the FTC to investigate a company?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:45:00 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission is the nation's premier privacy enforcer. In the last few years, it has gone after Facebook, Google, Twitter and several other firms for violating consumers' privacy or deceiving them about the degree to which they protect that privacy. To outsiders, the FTC can seem highly secretive - it doesn't announce when it opens an investigation, only when an investigation ends in a settlement, a lawsuit, or a public closing letter.

As a result, although the newspapers and blogs may be filled with stories about a particular privacy firestorm, there is no way to know if the FTC is investigating a company. A year or two later, the FTC might announce a settlement, or, the FTC may quietly close an investigation, without ever tipping the public off to the fact that agency staff spent months investigating the company.

I spent a year working in the FTC's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection between 2009-2010, where I got to assist with several important privacy investigations. I saw first hand how frustrating it is for staff, when advocates, the media and Members of Congress demand that the FTC investigate a company or worse, criticize the FTC for doing nothing, when FTC staff are already several months into a complex investigation.

In order to try and help the general public better understand this topic, I recently sought and obtained (via FOIA) the official Matter Initiation Notices (pdf) filed by FTC staff when they formally opened investigations into all of the major privacy-related cases settled during the past few years.

As these documents show, even the fastest privacy case (Google Buzz) took a year from start to finish, while others, such as Facebook (2.3 years) and ControlScan (2.7 years) took far longer.

The take-home lesson from this data? The FTC's investigations are not quick. Given that there are just a couple dozen attorneys in the Division, this isn't surprising. If we want better (and faster) privacy enforcement, giving the FTC more money to hire additional staff would be a great first step.

Sprint recklessly exposed Carrier IQ logged URL data to easy government access

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:00:00 +0000

In recent weeks, there has been considerable controversy around Carrier IQ and the data collected by it and the wireless phone companies who have partnered with the firm. Now that class action lawsuits have been filed, and the FTC is reportedly probing the company, one of the most important questions will be: What is the harm?

As I will attempt to argue in this blog post, by allowing Carrier IQ to collect and retain private user data (such as URLs of pages viewed), Sprint recklessly exposed this sensitive information, which would normally require a court order for the government to obtain, to access with a mere subpoena.

Last week, technical experts Ashkan Soltani and Peter Eckersley reported that Carrier IQ's software was, in some cases, collecting keystrokes and the contents of (SMS) text messages. A 19-page report (pdf) released by Carrier IQ confirmed the researchers' claims, putting the blame on a technical bug and accidental overlogging by Sprint or HTC.

For the purpose of this blog post, lets give Carrier IQ the benefit of the doubt. Instead, it is sufficient to focus our attention on one form of intentional data collection that Carrier IQ and its partner Sprint have acknowledged: the URLs of websites visited by handset owners. [There are others kinds of data that the company has intentionally logged too, for example, location data, but we don't know as much about this right now, so I'm focusing my analysis on URLs]

Carrier IQ and Sprint: Yeah, we log URLs

In a letter to Senator Franken (pdf) last week, Carrier IQ acknowledged that its software has been used by one wireless carrier to collect the URLs of webpages viewed by subscribers:

Embedded versions of IQ Agent allow for the collection of URLs if requested by a Network Operator in a profile. These can be collected together with performance metrics so that Network Operators can determine how devices on its network perform for specific web sites... The profile specified by the Network Operator and loaded on the device dictates if this information is actually gathered. The IQ Agent cannot read or copy the content of a website. Only one of Carrier IQ's customers has requested a profile to collect URLs of websites visited on devices on its network.

In its letter to Senator Franken (pdf), Sprint acknowledged that it was the wireless carrier that collected URLs:

Sprint already knows the website of a URL of a website that a user is trying to reach from routing the request on its network. This information may be collected through the Carrier IQ software as part of a profile established to troubleshoot website loading latencies or errors experienced by a population of subscribers.

Let us ignore the fact that in the same letter, Sprint falsely denies collecting users' search query information (the search terms are in the Google/Bing URL), that it failed to disclose that Sprint collects through Carrier IQ the URLs of webpages viewed over encrypted HTTPS connections which it would never learn by watching the network, or, that it probably also gets through Carrier IQ the URLs accessed by handset owners when they are using WiFI and not Sprint's network. While these are interesting points (and show that Sprint is either lying to a Senator, or their legal team is embarrassingly ignorant about technology), they are unnecessary for our analysis.

It is also worth mentioning, although similarly unnecessary for our analysis, that Sprint's Electronic Surveillance Manager revealed in comments at the ISS World surveillance conference in 2009 that Sprint allows its marketing department to look through the logs of URLs viewed by its subscribers:

On the Sprint 3G network, we have IP data back 24 months, and we have, depending on the device, we can actually tell you what URL they went to ... If [the handset uses] the [WAP] Media Access Gateway, we have the URL history for 24 months ... We don't store it because law enforcement asks us to store it, we store it because when we launched 3G in 2001 or so, we thought we were going to bill by the megabyte ... but ultimately, that's why we store the data ... It's because marketing wants to rifle through the data.

Legal protections for URL data under US privacy law

It is beyond a cliche at this point to complain that our primary electronic privacy law dates from 1986, and hasn't been substantially updated since. This law not only differs in the legal protections offered to data based on whether it is is content or non-content, but also, based on what kind of company is holding the data.

As a Sprint customer, I am obviously unhappy about the fact that that the company voluntarily logs and retains the URLs that subscribers visit - which are subsequently available to the government. However, I can get at least a tiny bit of comfort from the fact that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires a court order issued under 18 USC 2703(d) before Sprint can be forced to disclose these records to law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, if Sprint wished to do so, it could probably argue that URLs contain communications content, and thus should only be disclosed pursuant to a probable cause warrant. [DOJ has acknowledged in its Search and Seizure manual that URLs can contain content, at least in context of real-time intercepts via a pen register]. However, given Sprint's general pro-government approach to privacy, I wouldn't expect them to lift a finger to protect their customers.

Carrier IQ and ECPA

What about Carrier IQ? Does the government need a court order to get URLs when held by the company?

To be considered a "remote computing service" (RCS) or an "electronic communication service" (ECS) provider under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), you need to actually provide services to the public. Carrier IQ does not do this -- its customers are wireless carriers. On this point alone, user data held by Carrier IQ is simply not subject to the limited protections of ECPA.

Furthermore, even if we ignore the important requirement relating to providing services to the public, a service provider also has to actually provide the ability to send or receive a users' communication for it to be considered an ECS under the law. See Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923, 930-31 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (video game manufacturer that accessed private email of users of another company's bulletin board service was not a provider of electronic communication service); State Wide Photocopy, Corp. v. Tokai Fin. Servs., Inc., 909 F. Supp. 137, 145 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (financing company that used fax machines and computers but did not provide the ability to send or receive communications was not provider of electronic communication service).

Since Carrier IQ is merely covertly logging the URLs that consumers are viewing, rather than actually delivering web pages to the end user, they also aren't covered under ECPA.

So what?

As Carrier IQ is neither an RCS or ECS under ECPA, any data held by the company can be obtained by the government with a mere subpoena (and potentially, but I'm not as sure of this, by a civil litigant too, such as a divorce lawyer).

As Sprint opted to have user data sent to Carrier IQ, where it was held for 30-45 days, rather than having the carrier IQ software send the data directly to Sprint's servers, I believe that Sprint recklessly exposed this private information to easy access by the government without a court order. There are plenty of ways that the company could have guaranteed that this data would always remain protected under ECPA -- but it didn't do so.

Likewise, while Sprint claims in its letter to Senator Franken that it tells its customers in its privacy policy that it collects information about the sites that they visit, it never discloses to subscribers that this private data is collected and stored by a third party, or the important way this will enable government access to that data. Sprint needlessly kept its customers in the dark about the ways in which the firm was exposing their data to government access.

In its letter to Senator Franken, Carrier IQ denied getting any requests from law enforcement agencies for user data. Sprint had to issue a much more delicately worded statement: it has not disclosed Carrier IQ data to law enforcement (the reason for this careful wording, I suspect, is the presence of 110 employees in Sprint's Electronic Surveillance team who do nothing but supply user data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies).

Although the recent FOIA response that Muckrock received suggests that the FBI has at least some interest in Carrier IQ data, if we rely on the statements of Carrier IQ and Sprint, then, at least as it relates to URL data, the risks I have described in this blog post are largely theoretical. Even so, it doesn't change the fact that Sprint has demonstrated an extremely cavalier attitude towards user privacy.

In a best case scenario, Sprint's legal team simply didn't consider the ECPA/law enforcement related implications of using Carrier IQ's technology. In a worst case scenario, they knew what they were doing, and didn't care. In either case, the company should be held responsible.

Commerce Dept: export licenses for intercept tech have "exploded" over last 2,3 years

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:00:00 +0000

Earlier this year, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security held a two-day Conference on Export Controls and Policy. It included a workshop specifically focused on the rules governing the export of encryption technologies (which include intercept equipment). The full transcript can be found here: part 1 (pdf), part 2 (pdf).

As a non-lawyer, and non-expert in export control regulations, I was pretty surprised to learn that the government already strictly regulates the export of covert communications surveillance technology. What this means, of course, is that the Commerce Department already has a list of every foreign buyer of US made covert surveillance technology. Unfortunately, they won't provide this information to the public, and as far as I know, they won't provide it in response to FOIA requests.

In any case, reading through the transcript of the event, the following section caught my eye, as it specifically addressed the regulations that apply to surreptitious listening technology:

Michael Pender: Licenses [for "surreptitious listening" technology] are required for export to all end users, all destinations, and there's a general policy of denial.

The exceptions are for U.S. government agencies or communication-service providers there in the normal course of their business. So, if you're representing a U.S. law-enforcement agency and you're partnering with some other organization in another country and you need to send something out of the county, you know, contact us. Licenses are authorized for that situation.

If you represent a telecommunications company and you receive court orders for wiretaps from the local law enforcement and you have to comply with those court orders, you know, that's one of the few circumstances in which we can grant a license.

And you wouldn't think there would be that many licenses for these products in general in a year, but the rate at which they're coming in has just exploded over the course of the last 2, 3 years. I mean, I think I went from getting one a year to like five times as many, and then again, it's at least doubled or tripled in just the last year.

Twitter's privacy policy and the Wikileaks case

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:12:00 +0000

Summary: The federal judge in the Wikileaks case cited in his order a version of Twitter's privacy policy from 2010, rather than the very different policy that existed when Appelbaum, Gonggrijp and Jonsdottir created their Twitter accounts back in 2008. That older policy actually promised users that Twitter would keep their data private unless they violated the company's terms of service. It is unclear how the judge managed to miss this important detail.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in Virginia handed down an order in the high-profile Twitter/Wikileaks case. That order has already been widely covered by the media, so I won't summarize it here.

In ruling that Appelbaum, Gonggrijp and Jonsdottir did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the IP addresses that Twitter had collected, the judge specifically highlighted the existence of statements about IP address collection in Twitter's privacy policy.

(from page 3 of the order)

The judge noted that Twitter reveals in its privacy policy that it collects "many types of usage information, including physical location, IP address, browser type, the referring domain ..." To support this claim, the judge cited the "Bringola declaration" (pdf), which is a collection of screenshots from Twitter's website produced by a paralegal working for Appelbaum's lawyer.

The privacy policy reproduced in the Bringola declaration and cited by the judge was effective as of November 16, 2010, and appears to have been the current privacy policy in March of 2011 when the paralegal made the screenshots. That privacy policy included the following "Log Data" section:

Our servers automatically record information ("Log Data") created by your use of the Services. Log Data may include information such as your IP address, browser type, the referring domain, pages visited, your mobile carrier, device and application IDs, and search terms. Other actions, such as interactions with our website, applications and advertisements, may also be included in Log Data. If we haven’t already deleted the Log Data earlier, we will either delete it or remove any common account identifiers, such as your username, full IP address, or email address, after 18 months.

There is a slight problem with relying on a privacy policy created on November 16, 2010 to decide the reasonable expectation of privacy of these three individuals: They created their Twitter accounts several years before the document was written.

According to the useful website howlonghaveyoubeentweeting.com, Appelbaum's Twitter account was created on February 23, 2008, Gonggrijp created his on September 26, 2008, and Jonsdottir created hers on November 14, 2008.

Thankfully, Twitter seems to archive all the old versions of their privacy policy. It would appear that all three individuals would have "agreed to" (ignoring the fact that none of them likely read the thing in the first place) Version 1 of the privacy policy, dated May 14, 2007. The "Log data" section of that policy reads as follows:

When you visit the Site, our servers automatically record information that your browser sends whenever you visit a website ("Log Data" ). This Log Data may include information such as your IP address, browser type or the domain from which you are visiting, the web-pages you visit, the search terms you use, and any advertisements on which you click. For most users accessing the Internet from an Internet service provider the IP address will be different every time you log on. We use Log Data to monitor the use of the Site and of our Service, and for the Site's technical administration. We do not associate your IP address with any other personally identifiable information to identify you personally, except in case of violation of the Terms of Service.

There are a few things worth noting here:

The term "referring domain" appears in privacy policy cited by the judge in his court order, but not in Version 1 of the Twitter privacy policy. This strongly suggests that the judge is citing a newer version of the Twitter policy. The term appears to have been added in Version 2 of the privacy policy, dated November 18, 2009.
In Version 1 of its policy, Twitter promised its users that it would not associate their IP addresses with any other personally identifiable information sufficient to identify them personally, unless they violated the Twitter terms of service. This pro-user sentence was removed in Version 2 of Twitter's privacy policy, one year later.
The government has not alleged that any of the 3 individuals violated Twitter's terms of service. As such, it would appear that they could reasonably rely on Twitter's claims that it wouldn't associate their retained IP address information with their existing account records or any other personally identifiable information.

This is very interesting.

The old version of Twitter's policy that the three individuals "agreed" to also includes the following paragraph about updates to the document:

This Privacy Policy may be updated from time to time for any reason; each version will apply to information collected while it was in place. We will notify you of any material changes to our Privacy Policy by posting the new Privacy Policy on our Site. You are advised to consult this Privacy Policy regularly for any changes.

Note, Twitter didn't say that it would send out emails to users when it updated its privacy policy, instead, it advised users to revisit the site on a regular basis to see if the policy had changed. How this sentence passed the laugh test at Twitter's HQ, I do not know.

In subsequent edits to the policy, Twitter reworded this section, so that it now reads:

We may revise this Privacy Policy from time to time. The most current version of the policy will govern our use of your information and will always be at https://twitter.com/privacy. If we make a change to this policy that, in our sole discretion, is material, we will notify you via an @Twitter update or e-mail to the email associated with your account. By continuing to access or use the Services after those changes become effective, you agree to be bound by the revised Privacy Policy.

Got that? As of Version 2 of Twitter's privacy policy, merely by continuing to use Twitter, you agree to be bound by whatever the company adds to the policy. Oh, and it is up to the company to decide if the changes to the policy are important enough to justify telling users.

I know that I am not the first researcher to point out how stupid privacy policies are, or that no one reads them. Many others have done it, and done so far more eloquently than me. My goal in writing this blog post is simple: Not only is a federal judge ruling that 3 individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the government getting some of their Internet transaction data, but the judge isn't even citing the right version of a widely ignored privacy policy to do so. If the judge were to examine the privacy policy that existed when these three targets signed up for a Twitter account, he might decide that they do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the government needs a warrant to get the data.

Two honest Google employees: our products don't protect your privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:26:00 +0000

Two senior Google employees recently acknowledged that the company's products do not protect user privacy. This is quite a departure from the norm at Google, where statements about privacy are usually thick with propaganda, mistruths and often outright deception.

Google's products do not meet the privacy needs of journalists, bloggers, small businesses (or anyone else concerned about government surveillance).

Last week, I published an op-ed in the New York Times that focused on the widespread ignorance of computer security among journalists and news organizations. Governments often have no need to try and compel a journalist to reveal the identity of their sources if they can simply obtain stored communication records from phone, email and social networking companies.

Will DeVries, Google's top DC privacy lobbyist soon posted a link to the article on his (personal) Google+ page, and added the following comment:

I often disagree with Chris, but when he's right, he's dead right. Journalists (and bloggers, and small businesses) need to take a couple hours and learn to use free, widely available security measures to store data and communicate.

Let me first say that I really respect Will. Many of the people in Google's policy team default to propaganda mode when questioned. Will does not do this - he either speaks truthfully, or declines to comment. I wish companies would hire more people like him, as they significantly boost the credibility of the firm among privacy advocates.

Regarding Will's comment: If Google's products were secure out of the box, journalists would not need to "take a couple hours" to learn to protect their data and communications. Will does not tell journalists to ditch their insecure Hotmail accounts and switch to Gmail, or to ditch their easily trackable iPhones and get an Android device. Likewise, he does not advise people to stop using Skype for voice and video chat, and instead use Google's competing services. He doesn't do that, because if he described these services as more secure and resistant to government access than the competition, he'd be lying.

Google's services are not secure by default, and, because the company's business model depends upon the monetizaton of user data, the company keeps as much data as possible about the activities of its users. These detailed records are not just useful to Google's engineers and advertising teams, but are also a juicy target for law enforcement agencies.

It would be great if Google's products were suitable for journalists, bloggers, activists and other groups that are routinely the target of surveillance by governments around the world. For now, though, as Will notes, these persons will need to investigate the (non-Google) tools and methods with which they can protect their data.

Google business model is in conflict with privacy by design

At a recent conference in Kenya, Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist spoke on the same panel as me. We had the following exchange over the issue of Google's lack of encryption for user data stored on the company's servers (I've edited it to show the important bits about this particular topic - the full transcript is online here).

Me:

[I]t's very difficult to monetize data when you cannot see it. And so if the files that I store in Google docs are encrypted or if the files I store on Amazon's drives are encrypted then they are not able to monetize it....And unfortunately, these companies are putting their desire to monetize your data over their desire to protect your communications.

Now, this doesn't mean that Google and Microsoft and Yahoo! are evil. They are not going out of their way to help law enforcement. It's just that their business model is in conflict with your privacy. And given two choices, one of which is protecting you from the government and the other which is making money, they are going to go with making money because, of course, they are public corporations. They are required to make money and return it to their shareholders.

Vint Cerf:

I think you're quite right, however that, we couldn't run our system if everything in it were encrypted because then we wouldn't know which ads to show you. So this is a system that was designed around a particular business model.

Google could encrypt user data in storage with a key not known to the company, as several other cloud storage companies already do. Unfortunately, Google's ad supported business model simply does not permit the company to protect user data in this way. The end result is that law enforcement agencies can, and regularly do request user data from the company -- requests that would lead to nothing if the company put user security and privacy first.

The forces that led to the DigiNotar hack

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:45:00 +0000

Last week, the New York Times finally covered the DigiNotar hacks, more than two weeks after security experts and the tech media first broke the story. Unfortunately, the top 2-3 newspapers in the US (which is what legislative staff, regulators and policy makers read) have missed most of the important details. The purpose of this blog post is to fill in those gaps, providing key context to understand this incident as part of the larger Internet trust (and surveillance) debate.

Lawful access

As consumers around the world have embraced cloud computing, large Internet firms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, all of them based in the United States, increasingly hold users' most private documents and other data. This has been a boon for law enforcement agencies, which can often obtain these files without a court issued search warrant, or have to provide the investigated individual with the kind of prompt notice that would otherwise occur had their home been searched.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the US, EU, Canada, Brasil, India, Japan, Israel and several other countries all regularly obtain private user data from Google. The company will insist on a court order for some kinds of user data, but will disclose many other types of data and subscriber records without first insisting on an order issued by an independent judge. This isn't because Google is evil, but because privacy laws in these countries, the US included, are so weak.

Google does not treat all governments equally though. For example, the company will not honor requests from the governments of Iran, Libya, Zimbabwe, Vietnam and several other countries. You might be inclined to believe that Google has taken this position because of the poor human rights record in these countries - that is part of the reason (but not the whole one, otherwise, Google would refuse requests from the US government which has a documented track record of assassination, rendition/kidnapping and torture). Google's policy of refusing these requests, I believe, largely comes down to the fact that Google does not have an office or staff in those countries. Without a local presence, employees to threaten with arrest or equipment to seize, these governments lack leverage over Google.

This situation is not specific to Google - Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft and other large US firms all disclose user data to governments that have leverage over them, and ignore requests from others. Thus, lacking any "legitimate" way to engage in what they believe is lawful surveillance of their citizens, these governments that lack leverage have turned to other methods. Specifically, network surveillance.

An unintended consequence of HTTPS by default

When users connect to Facebook, Twitter, or Hotmail—as well as many other popular websites—they are vulnerable to passive network surveillance and active attacks, such as account hijacking. These services are vulnerable because they do not use HTTPS encryption to protect all data as it is transmitted over the Internet.

Such attacks are trivially easy for hackers to perform against users of an open WiFi network using tools like Firesheep. They are also relatively easy for government agencies to perform on a larger scale, when they can compel the assistance of upstream ISPs.

As I described above, because Google will not respond to formal requests for user data from certain governments, it is likely that the state security agencies in these countries have come to depend on network interception, performed with the assistance of domestic ISPs.

Unfortunately for these governments, in January 2010, Google enabled HTTPS by default for Gmail and a few other services. Once the firm flipped the default setting, passive network surveillance became impossible. Thus, in January 2010, the governments of Iran and a few other countries lost their ability to watch the communications of domestic Google users.

For now, these governments can still spy on Facebook, Twitter and Hotmail, as these services do not use HTTPS by default. That is changing though. Following the release of Firesheep in October 2010, (as well as two senior US government officials calling for encryption by default) all three services now offer configuration options to force the use of HTTPS. These firms are all moving towards HTTPS by default - for some firms, it will likely be a matter of weeks until it happens, for others, months.

Governments can see the writing on the wall - HTTPS by default will become the norm. Passive network surveillance will lose its potency as a tool of government monitoring, and once that happens, the state intelligence agencies will "go dark", losing the ability to keep tabs on their citizen's use of foreign, mostly US-based Internet communications services.

HTTPS Certificate Authorities and surveillance

As these large providers switch to HTTPS by default, government agencies will no longer be able to rely on passive network interception. By switching to active interception attacks, these governments can, in many cases, easily neutralize the HTTPS encryption, thus restoring their ability to spy on their citizens. One active attack, known as a "man in the middle attack" requires that the government first obtain a HTTPS certificate issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) trusted by the major web browsers.

In March of 2010, Sid Stamm and I published a paper on what we called compelled certificate creation attacks, in which a government simply requires a domestic Certificate Authority issue it one or more certificates for surveillance purposes. When we released a draft of our paper, we also published a product brochure I had obtained in the fall of 2009 at the ISS surveillance conference, for a Packet Forensics interception device that described how it could be used to intercept communications using these kinds of certificates.

The browsers trust a lot of Certificate Authorities, probably too many. These include companies located in countries around the world. They also include Certificate Authorities that are operated by government agencies. For example, Microsoft trusts a couple dozen governments, that include Tunisia and Venezuela. It is perhaps worth noting that Microsoft continues to trust the Tunisian government even after it was caught in December 2010 actively hijacking the accounts of Facebook users -- an act that led to Facebook enabling HTTPS by default for all users in the country.)

In any case, as Sid an I described, governments can compel domestic Certificate Authorities to provide them with the certificates necessary to intercept their own citizens' communications. However, not all governments around the world are as lucky as Tunisia to be trusted by the browsers, nor do all of them have a domestic certificate authority that they can bully around. Some countries, like Iran, have no way to obtain a certificate that will let them spy on Google users (yes, I know that you can buy intermediate CA issuing powers, but I am assuming that no one will sell this to the Iranian gov).

In recent weeks, we have learned that the encrypted communications of 300,000 people in Iran were monitored by an entity using a certificate that DigiNotar issued. While the Iranian government has not admitted to conducting this man in the middle surveillance against its citizens, it seems reasonable to assume they were behind it. The reason for this certificate theft seems pretty clear, when you consider the other details described in this blog post:

Iran wants to spy on its citizens. It wants the same interception and spying capabilities that the US and other western governments have. Unfortunately for the Iranian government, it has no domestic CA, and Google doesn't have an office in Tehran. So, it used a certificate obtained by hacking into a CA already trusted by the browsers - a CA that had weak default passwords, and that covered up the attack for weeks after it learned about it, giving the Iranian government plenty of time to use the stolen certificate to spy on its citizens.

As Facebook, Twitter and other big sites embrace HTTPS by default, the temptation will grow for for governments without other ways to spy their citizens to hack into certificate authorities with weak security. Can you blame them?

NSA and other US government agencies have gambled with our security

In December 2009, after I had obtained Packet Forensics' product marketing materials, I met with a former senior US intelligence official. I told him that I believed that governments around the world were abusing this flaw to spy on their own citizens, as well as foreigners. When I told him I would be going public in a few months, motivated by my concerns about China and other governments spying on Americans, he said I would be aiding "terrorists in Peshawar" by helping to secure their communications. Needless to say, our meeting wasn't particularly productive.

US intelligence agencies have long known about the flaws associated with the current certificate authority web of trust. For example, in 1998, James Hayes, an air force captain working for the National Security Agency published an academic paper in which he described the ease with which certificates could be used to intercept traffic:

Certificate masquerading allows a masquerader to substitute an unsuspecting server’s valid certificate with the masquerader’s valid certificate. The masquerader could monitor Web traffic, picking up unsuspecting victims’ surfing habits, such as the various net shopping malls and stores a victim may visit. The masquerader could change messages at will without detection, or collect the necessary information and go shopping on his or her own time.

Of course, it isn't too surprising that NSA has known about these vulnerabilities. If the agency hadn't know about these risks, it would have been grossly incompetent.

The question to consider then, is what has and hasn't the NSA done with this knowledge. In addition to attacking the computers of foreign governments, NSA is supposed to protect US government electronic assets. In the 10 years since NSA first acknowledged it knew about the problems with certificate authorities, what steps has the agency taken to protect US government computers from these attacks? Likewise, what has it done to protect US businesses and individuals?

The answer, I believe, is "nothing". The reason for this, I suspect, is that NSA wanted to exploit the flaws itself and didn't want to do anything that would lead to the elimination of what is likely a valuable source of intelligence information -- even though this meant that the governments of China, Turkey, Israel, Tunisia and Venezuela would have access to this surveillance method too.

Perhaps this was a reasonable choice to make, when the intelligence agencies abusing the flaw could be trusted to do so discreetly (The first rule of State-run CA Club is...). The Iranians have upset that delicate understanding. They have acquired and used certificates in a manner that is anything but discreet, thus forcing the issue to the front page of newspapers around the world.

Now, any state actor or criminal enterprise with a budget to hire hackers can likely get its hands on fraudulent certificates sufficient to intercept users' communications, as Comodo and DigiNotar will not be the last certificate authorities with weak security to be hacked. Hundreds of millions of computers around the world remain vulnerable to this attack, and will likely stay this way, until the web browser vendors decide upon and deploy effective defenses.

Had the US defense and intelligence community acted 10 years ago to protect the Internet, instead of exploiting this flaw, we would not be in the dire situation that we are currently in, waiting for the next hacked certificate authority, or the next man in the middle attack.

Warrantless "emergency" surveillance of Internet communications by DOJ up 400%

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:20:00 +0000

According to an official DOJ report, the use of "emergency", warrantless requests to ISPs for customer communications content has skyrocketed over 400% in a single year.

The 2009 report (pdf), which I recently obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request (it took DOJ 11 months (pdf) to give me the two-page report), reveals that law enforcement agencies within the Department of Justice sought and obtained communications content for 91 accounts. This number is a significant increase over previous years: 17 accounts in 2008 (pdf), 9 accounts in 2007 (pdf), and 17 accounts in 2006 (pdf).

Background

When Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986, it permitted law enforcement agencies to obtain stored communications and customer records in emergencies without the need for a court order.

In such scenarios, a carrier can (but is not required to) disclose the requested information if it, "in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency." Typically, belief means that a police officer states that an emergency exists.

With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Congress created specific statistical reporting requirements for the voluntary disclosure of the contents of subscriber communications in emergency situations. In describing his motivation for introducing the requirement, Senator Lungren stated that:

"I felt that some accountability is necessary to ensure that this authority is not being abused… This information [contained in the reports] I believe should be highly beneficial to the Committee, fulfilling our oversight responsibility in the future … this is the best way for us to have a ready manner of looking at this particular section. In the hearings that we had, I found no basis for claiming that there has been abuse of this section. I don't believe on its face it is an abusive section. But I do believe that it could be subject to abuse in the future and, therefore, this allows us as Members of Congress to have an ability to track this on a regular basis."

The current reports are deeply flawed

The emergency request reports are compiled and submitted by the Attorney General, and only apply to disclosures made to law enforcement agencies within the Department of Justice. As such, there are no statistics for emergency disclosures made to other federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service, as well as those made to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, although 18 USC 2702 permits both the disclosure of the content of communications, as well as non-content records associated with subscribers and their communications (such as geo-location data), Congress only required that statistics be compiled for the disclosure of communications content. It is not clear why Congress limited the reports in this way.

Because the reporting requirements do not apply to disclosures made to law enforcement agencies outside the Department of Justice, and do not include the disclosure of non-content communications data and other subscriber records, the reports reveal a very limited portion of the scale of voluntary disclosures to law enforcement agencies.

Likewise, although Congress intended for these reports to assist with public oversight of the emergency disclosure authority, the Department of Justice has not proactively made these reports available to the general public. The reports for 2006 and 2007 were leaked to me by a friend with contacts on the Hill. I obtained the 2008 and 2009 reports via FOIA requests -- and disgracefully, it took DOJ 11 months to provide me with a copy of the 2-page report for 2009.

The emergency requests documented in these reports only scratch the surface

A letter (pdf) submitted by Verizon to Congressional committees in 2007 revealed that the company had received 25,000 emergency requests during the previous year. Of these 25,000 emergency requests, just 300 requests were from federal law enforcement agencies. In contrast, the reports submitted to Congress by the Attorney General reveal less than 20 disclosures for that year. Even though no other service provider has disclosed similar numbers regarding emergency disclosures, it is quite clear that the Department of Justice statistics are not adequately reporting the scale of this form of surveillance. In fact, they underreport these disclosures by several orders of magnitude.

The current reporting law is largely useless. It does not apply to state and local law enforcement agencies, who make tens of thousands of warrantless requests to ISPs each year. It does not apply to federal law enforcement agencies outside DOJ, such as the Secret Service. Finally, it does not apply to emergency disclosures of non-content information, such as geo-location data, subscriber information (such as name and address), or IP addresses used.

As such, Congress currently has no idea how many warrantless requests are made to ISPs each year. How can it hope to make sane policy in this area, when it has no useful data?

Privacy preserving FOIA lawsuits

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:45:00 +0000

Several weeks ago, after an extremely successful online fundraising effort to cover the costs, I filed a FOIA complaint in Washington, DC Federal District Court.

Before filing the complaint, I looked through the court website and paid particular attention to a document posted there, titled Information for Parties Who Wish to File a Civil Complaint (pdf), which states:

The name of this Court must be written at the top of the first page [of the complaint]. The complete name and address for each plaintiff must be included in the caption of the complaint. A Post Office Box is insufficient as an address, unless you file a separate motion asking the Court to permit such an address.

Since moving to Washington DC, I've tried to keep my residential address out of databases, primarily by using a PO Box for everything possible. As such, I wasn't too keen on my home address showing up in a public court docket. Following the guidance given by the court, I put my PO box address on my FOIA complaint and filed an accompanying Motion To Include PO Box Address on Complaint.

Two weeks later, I called the court clerk to find out the status of the case, I was told that my motion had been rejected and that the my complaint and all the accompanying documents had been sent back to me.

The clerk didn't actually tell me the reason why the motion had been rejected, and so as soon as I returned to DC, I refiled the complaint with my home address, which was promptly docketed by the clerk.

Several days later, an envelope from the clerk arrived in the mail, which included a copy of the motion that I had filed. Written on it was a note by Judge Royce Lamberth, informing me that my motion was denied, but that the court would reconsider it if I provided my residence address to be filed under seal for the court and defendants.

This news came too late for me -- my home address is now in the DC court docket (something I am still rather upset about), but perhaps this information will be useful to others.

Motion for Po Box Denied

Senators hint at DOJ's secret reinterpretation and use of Section 215 of the Patriot Act

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 25 May 2011 03:23:00 +0000

Summary

According to two Democratic Senators, the Department of Justice has secretly reinterpreted a controversial provision contained in the USA Patriot Act to give the government surveillance powers that are "inconsistent with the public’s understanding of these laws." The senators also accuse DOJ of misleading the American public when describing the use of this legal authority.

This disclosure builds on previous cryptic statements from DOJ officials regarding the use of "Section 215" powers for "sensitive collection program," and Senator Russ Feingold regarding repeated abuses of Section 215 that he was not permitted to publicly describe.

Although FBI Director Robert Mueller revealed earlier this year that the FBI has used Section 215 powers to monitor the sale of hydrogen peroxide, such data collection is unlikely to be the "sensitive collection program" about which several senators have tried to alert the public.

If I had to make a wild guess, I suspect it is likely related to warrantless, massive scale collection of geo-location information from cellular phones.

Secret reinterpretations of the law

Marcy Wheeler reported this evening that Senators Wyden and Udall, both of whom are on the Intelligence committee have submitted an amendment (pdf) as part of the rushed, bipartisan effort to reauthorize Patriot Act. The amendment is noteworthy not because of the changes to the law it proposes, but the information it reveals:

(6) United States Government officials should not secretly reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of these laws, and should not describe the execution of these laws in a way that misinforms or misleads the public;

(7) On February 2, 2011, the congressional intelligence committees received a secret report from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that has been publicly described as pertaining to intelligence collection authorities that are subject to expiration under section 224 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107–56; 115 Stat. 295); and

(8) while it is entirely appropriate for particular intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret, the laws that authorize such techniques, and the United States Government’s official interpretation of these laws, should not be kept secret but should instead be transparent to the public, so that these laws can be the subject of informed public debate and consideration.

For those of you who don't read legalese, this means that the Department of Justice has secretly reinterpreted a controversial provision in the Patriot Act, likely Section 215, and is using it in a way that is inconsistent with the public's understanding of the law.

DOJ has already admitted that Section 215 is being used for a "sensitive collection program"

On September 22, 2009, Todd Hinnen, then the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for law and policy in DOJ’s National Security Division testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in support of the reauthorization of key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

During his oral testimony, Mr. Hinnen stated that:

"The business records provision [Section 215] allows the government to obtain any tangible thing it demonstrates to the FISA court is relevant to a counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation.

This provision is used to obtain critical information from the businesses unwittingly used by terrorists in their travel, plotting, preparation for, communication regarding, and execution of attacks.

It also supports an important, sensitive collection program about which many members of the subcommittee or their staffs have been briefed."

Section 215 has been repeatedly abused

On October 1, 2009, Senator Feingold made several statements regarding abuses of Section 215 during a Senate Judiciary Committee markup hearing:

"I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act remains classified. Information that I believe, would have a significant impact on the debate..... There is also information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American People deserve to know. It is unfortunate that we cannot discuss this information today.

…

Mr Chairman, I am also a member of the intelligence Committee. I recall during the debate in 2005 that proponents of Section 215 argued that these authorities had never been misused. They cannot make that statement now. They have been misused. I cannot elaborate here. But I recommend that my colleagues seek more information in a classified setting.

…

I want to specifically disagree with Senator Kyle's statement that just the fact that there haven't been abuses of the other provisions which are Sunsetted. That is not my view of Section 215. I believe section 215 has been misused as well."

Likewise, after the Senate rejected several reforms of Section 215 powers in 2009, Senator Durbin told his colleagues that:

"[T]he real reason for resisting this obvious, common-sense modification of Section 215 is unfortunately cloaked in secrecy. Some day that cloak will be lifted, and future generations will whether ask our actions today meet the test of a democratic society: transparency, accountability, and fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution."

Conclusion

Clearly, there are many unanswered questions - we do not know what kind of data collection is occurring, and why it is problematic enough to cause four senators to speak up publicly. However, given that four senators have now spoken up, this strongly suggests that there is something seriously rotten going on.

Industry-created "privacy enhancing" abandonware

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:55:00 +0000

Industry loves self regulation and why shouldn't it? Given the choice between strong enforcement by a federal agency, and scout's honor promises, industry would be foolish to support a strong FTC.

Unfortunately, the self-regulatory groups and organizations that are created in response to the threat of regulation are often extremely short lived.

Pam Dixon noted this in her her comment (pdf) submitted in response to the FTC's recent privacy report:

[I]ndustry knows that the Commission’s attention span is limited. When the Commission showed interest in online privacy in the years before 2000, industry responded by developing and loudly trumpeting a host of privacy self-regulatory activities. Most of these activities were strictly for the purpose of convincing policy makers at the Commission and elsewhere that regulation or legislation was a bad idea. All of these activities actually or effectively disappeared as soon as new appointees to the Commission demonstrated a lack of interest in regulatory or legislative approaches to privacy.

[These include:]

The Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG) was announced in 1997 as a self-regulatory organization for companies that provide information that identifies or locates individuals. The group terminated in 2001.

The Privacy Leadership Initiative began in 2000 to promote self regulation and to support privacy educational activities for business and for consumers. The organization lasted about two years.

The Online Privacy Alliance began in 1998 with an interest in promoting industry self regulation for privacy. OPA’s last reported activity appears to have taken place in 2001, although its website continues to exist and shows signs of an update in 2011.

The Network Advertising Initiative had its origins in 1999, when the Federal Trade Commission showed interest in the privacy effects of online behavioral targeting. By 2003, when FTC interest in privacy regulation had evaporated, the NAI had only two members. Enforcement and audit activity lapsed as well. NAI did nothing to fulfill its promises or keep its standards up to date with current technology until 2008, when FTC interest increased

Industry created privacy enhancing software is made for regulators, not consumers

A few weeks ago, Ryan Singel at Wired wrote about Google's curious lack of support for Do Not Track (DNT). Rather than embracing the DNT header supported by the three other major browser vendors, Google is instead pushing the 3rd party browser plugins it has released that make it possible for consumers to retain their opt out cookies.

As I told Ryan then:

"[Google's] opt-out cookies and their plug-in are not aimed at consumers," Soghoian says. "They are aimed at policy makers. Their purpose is to give them something to talk about when they get called in front of Congress. No one is using this plug-in and they don’t expect anyone to use it."

Soon after this piece was published, I received a bit of pushback from several friends in Washington, who felt I was unfairly slamming the company.

However, when you actually examine the history of the industry's privacy enhancing technologies, they seem awfully similar to the short-lived self regulatory organizations that Pam Dixon highlighted.

Privacy enhancing abandonware

On March 11, 2009, Google entered the behavioral advertising market. On the same day, Google released its Advertising Cookie Opt-out Plugin for Firefox and Internet Explorer. The browser plugin permanently saves the DoubleClick opt-out cookie, enabling users to retain their opt-out status even after clearing all cookies.

Google's tool was a genuine innovation in privacy enhancing technologies. Furthermore, as the tool was released under an open source license, I was able to take the source code, expand it, and turn it into TACO, which opted consumers out of dozens of different ad networks.

The initial release of Google's plugin worked with Firefox 1.5 through 3.0.

In June 2009, Mozilla released Firefox 3.5. It took Google nearly two weeks to release an update to its plugin that was compatible with the new version of the browser.

One year later, Mozilla released Firefox 3.6 in January 2010. This time, it took more than a month for Google to release an updated version of the add-on.

Most recently, on March 22, 2011, Mozilla released Firefox 4.0. More than 5 weeks later, Google still has not released an updated version of its opt out add-on.

Google can perhaps be forgiven for ignoring the users of its Firefox privacy add-on -- the company's attention seems to have shifted to its new plugin: Keep My Opt Outs, which only supports the company's Chrome Browser (the tool was ~~quickly rushed out~~ announced on the same day that Mozilla announced its support for Do Not Track).

Similarly, in November 2009, the Network Advertising Initiative (an organization representing many of the major ad networks) released its own Firefox plugin that makes opt out cookies permanent. NAI Executive Director Charles Curran told one journalist that "this [tool] has been a recognition of criticism of opt-outs that are recorded in cookies. It's essentially designed to prevent the standard sweep of cookies that you get from a cookie cache dump...It's designed to work with the browser functionality."

As with Google's plugin, although it has been more than 5 weeks since the the release of Firefox 4.0, the NAI plugin still has not been updated to support it.

Why updates are important

When a user upgrades to a new version of Firefox, the browser will check for available updates to all installed browser plugins. Any plugins that have not been updated to support the new browser release will be disabled. This is obviously a pretty big problem, which is why Mozilla actively encourages developers to make sure that their addons support upcoming versions of the browser. For the 4.0 version of Firefox, which was released in March, Mozilla started harassing add-on developers as far back as November, 2010.

As such, there are likely tens of thousands (if not more) users of Firefox 4.0 whose Advertising Cookie Opt-out Plugin is currently disabled due to incompatibility. The moment these users clear their cookies (something some many have configured to happen automatically when they restart their browser), they will lose their doubleclick.net behavioral advertising opt out cookie. Likewise, the thousands of Firefox 4.0 users who had previously installed the NAI opt out plugin have now lost the opt out cookie persistence that they were promised.

These firms have created privacy enhancing technologies and then loudly advertised them to consumers and regulators. Unfortunately, now that the attention of regulators has shifted to Do Not Track, both Google and the NAI appear to have abandoned the users of their respective plugins. Neither firm has provided their users with sufficient notice to let them know the impact, or let them know what other options they have to continue to maintain their opt out choices.

Perhaps the FTC will take notice?

How can US law enforcement agencies access location data stored by Google and Apple?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 08:30:00 +0000

Note: I am not a lawyer. US privacy law is exceedingly complex. If I am wrong, I hope that someone who knows this better will chime in.

Over the past day, the iPhone location scandal has expanded beyond location data retained on the phone to data sent by iPhones and Android devices back to Apple and Google. This raises some really interesting issues, particularly regarding the degree to which these companies can be compelled to disclose that data to law enforcement agencies. In this blog post, I am going to try and examine the limited legal protections afforded to this data.

Introduction

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple's iPhones and iPads and Google's Android mobile phones all collect and transmit back to the companies data about a device's nearby WiFi access points, geo-location data, and in Google's case, a unique identifier.

According to the Journal, Android phones collect the data every few seconds and transmit it to the company at least several times an hour. Apple, meanwhile, "intermittently" collects data and transmits that data to itself every 12 hours.

The motivation for this data collection appears to be in order to create a large database of WiFi access points and their associated location, which can then be used by mobile devices to determine the user's approximate location information (doing so via WiFi uses far less battery power than using the GPS chip).

While such collection is likely entirely commercial in nature, this also raises serious privacy concerns regarding the ease with which law enforcement agencies can access this sensitive data.

A quick primer in location privacy law

The primary law in the US that governs the privacy of information kept by Internet and communications companies is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). This law dates back to 1986, long before cloud computing, email inboxes larger than 5 megabytes, or GPS enabled smartphones. To be quite blunt, the law is hopelessly out of date, and it is for this reason that the House and Senate held multiple hearings over the last two years focused on ECPA reform.

For user data to be protected by ECPA, it needs to fall into one of two categories:

An "electronic communication service" ("ECS") is "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." Examples of this include telephone email services.

A "remote computing service" ("RCS") is a "provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system." Roughly speaking, a remote computing service is provided by an off-site computer that stores or processes data for a user. Examples of this likely include data stored in the cloud, such as online backup services.

ECPA provides varying degrees of protections for communications content and non-content data stored by an ECS or RCS (without going too far into the details, communications content generally required a warrant, and most non-content data can be obtained with a lesser court order). However, if the service is neither an ECS, nor an RCS, law enforcement agencies can obtain the information with a mere subpoena, without getting a judge to sign off on the order.

Location data under ECPA

Law enforcement agencies routinely obtain location data from wireless telephone companies. Depending on the kind of data sought (historical or real time, fine-grained or approximate tower data), the kind of court order varies between a probable cause warrant, or an order based upon facts showing that the information will be relevant and material to an ongoing investigation.

It is important to note that the wireless carriers are providing their customers with a communications service, and that the location data is usually generated in the process of the users' phone transmitting voice or other data to a tower. While most consumers probably do not realize that the phone companies know where they are whenever they make a call or check their email, consumers are at least knowingly making a call or checking their email. As such, the location data obtained by the government quite clearly falls into the ECS category under ECPA.

Internet companies, location data and ECPA

In 2009, Google launched Latitude, its mobile location check-in competitor to Loopt and Foursquare. Shortly after the launch, the EFF reported that both Loopt and Google had pledged to require that user location data would only be delivered to law enforcement agencies in response to a warrant.

As EFF explained at the time:

When it comes to friend-finding services, we think it’s clear that your location information is the content of a private communication between you and your friends, and that it deserves the same legal protections against wiretapping as the content of your phone calls or your emails.

Because the text of ECPA doesn't actually include the word "location", Loopt and Google tried to get the best protections they could for users' check-in data by arguing that it is in fact a communication transmitted through their service to users' friends. That is, these firms argued that check-in location data is is an ECS.

(Note to legal experts: I am simplifying this a little bit, since these companies actually insisted on a wiretap order. The companies don't keep any historical location data by default, other than the most recent data-point, so they insisted on an intercept order before they would start retaining future location data).

iPhone/Android location data: ECS, RCS or neither?

Now, with this in mind, lets consider the location data transmitted covertly by iPhones and Android devices. Given that the existence of this information collection and transmission wasn't widely disclosed to users (other than in privacy policies that no one reads), that it didn't hit the press until this week, and that users are not knowingly transmitting the information to their friends or anyone else, I think it is going to be pretty tough for these two firms to be able to claim that this location data falls into the ECS protections of ECPA. This location data is simply not a communication by the user.

Similarly, I don't think that these companies can reasonably claim that this location data falls into the category of an RCS, since it isn't a storage or processing service provided to the user. Quite simply, the companies are collecting this data for their own benefit, not the user's, who probably has no idea that it is being collected and transmitted to a server somewhere.

What this means, I think, is that this location data likely does not fall under the protections of ECPA, which means that law enforcement agencies can likely obtain it with just a subpoena.

Now, it is quite possible that if and when these firms receive a request for this data, they could refuse to comply with the subpoena, and argue that it should be subject to the protections of the 4th Amendment. Certainly, some judges around the country have decided that mobile phone location data is sensitive enough to require a probable cause warrant issued by a judge. However, many other judges do not agree with that theory. Without the protections of ECPA, if the courts do not think this data deserves 4th amendment protections, there is nothing to stop law enforcement agencies from getting it with a subpoena.

Conclusion

What should be clear after reading this post is that privacy law in this country is hopelessly out of date. The collection of location information by Apple and Google raises some really troubling questions regarding the degree to which existing law restricts law enforcement access to the data when it is not associated with a communication by the user, but rather, is collected without their knowledge or consent.

As I noted at the beginning of this post, I am not a legal expert (but a computer scientist by training). There are several fantastic privacy law experts out there, and I really hope that they look into this issue, and write their own, far more extensive analysis.

How Dropbox sacrifices user privacy for cost savings

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:00:00 +0000

Note: This flaw is different than the authentication flaw in Dropbox that Derek Newton recently published.

Summary

Dropbox, the popular cloud based backup service deduplicates the files that its users have stored online. This means that if two different users store the same file in their respective accounts, Dropbox will only actually store a single copy of the file on its servers.

The service tells users that it "uses the same secure methods as banks and the military to send and store your data" and that "[a]ll files stored on Dropbox servers are encrypted (AES-256) and are inaccessible without your account password." However, the company does in fact have access to the unencrypted data (if it didn't, it wouldn't be able to detect duplicate data across different accounts).

This bandwidth and disk storage design tweak creates an easily observable side channel through which a single bit of data (whether any particular file is already stored by one or more users) can be observed.

If you value your privacy or are worried about what might happen if Dropbox were compelled by a court order to disclose which of its users have stored a particular file, you should encrypt your data yourself with a tool like truecrypt or switch to one of several cloud based backup services that encrypt data with a key only known to the user.

Introduction

For those of you who haven't heard of it, Dropbox is a popular cloud-based backup service that automatically synchronizes user data. It is really easy to use and the company even offers users 2GB of storage for free, with the option to pay for more space.

The problem is, offering free storage space to users can be quite expensive, at least once you gain millions of users. In what I suspect was a price-motivated design decision, Dropbox deduplicates the data uploaded by its users. What this means is that if two users backup the same file, Dropbox only stores a single copy of it. The file still appears in both users' accounts, but the company doesn't consume storage space nor upload bandwidth on a second copy of the file.

The company's CTO described the deduplication in a note posted in the "Bugs & Troubleshooting" section on the company's web forum last year:

Woah! How did that 750MB file upload so quickly?

Dropbox tries to be very smart about minimizing the amount of bandwidth used. If we detect that a file you're trying to upload has already been uploaded to Dropbox, we don't make you upload it again. Similarly, if you make a change to a file that's already on Dropbox, you'll only have to upload the pieces of the file that changed.

This works across all data on Dropbox, not just your own account. There are no security implications [emphasis added] - your data is still kept logically separated and not affected by changes that other users make to their data.

Ashkan Soltani was able to verify the deduplication for himself a couple weeks ago. It took just a few minutes with a packet sniffer. A new randomly generated 6.8MB file uploaded to dropbox lead to 7.4MB of network traffic, while a 6.4MB file that had been previously uploaded to a different dropbox account lead to just 16KB in network traffic.

Claims of security and privacy

There are long standing privacy and security concerns with storing data in the cloud, and so Dropbox has a helpful page on their website which attempts to address these:

Your files are actually safer while stored in your Dropbox than on your computer in some cases. We use the same secure methods as banks and the military to send and store your data.

Dropbox takes the security of your files and of our software very seriously. We use the best tools and engineering practices available to build our software, and we have smart people making sure that Dropbox remains secure. Your files are backed-up, stored securely, and password-protected.

...

Dropbox uses modern encryption methods to both transfer and store your data...

All files stored on Dropbox servers are encrypted (AES-256) and are inaccessible without your account password

Reading through this document, it would be easy for anyone but a crypto expert to get the false impression that Dropbox does in fact protect the security and privacy of users' data. Many users and even the technology press will not realize that AES-256 is useless against many attacks if the encryption key isn't kept private.

What is missing from the firm's website is a statement regarding how the company is using encryption, and in particular, what kinds of keys are used and who has access to them.

Encryption and deduplication

Encryption and deduplication are two technologies that generally don't mix well. If the encryption is done correctly, it should not be possible to detect what files a user has stored (or even if they have stored the same file as someone else), and so deduplication will not be possible.

Dropbox is likely calculating hashes of users' files before they are transmitted to the company's servers. While it is not clear if the company is using a single encryption key for all of the files users' have stored with the service, or multiple encryption keys, it doesn't really matter (from a privacy and security standpoint), because Dropbox knows the keys. If the company didn't have access to the encryption keys, it wouldn't be able to detect duplicate files.

While the decision to deduplicate data has probably saved the company quite a bit of storage space and bandwidth, it has significant flaws which are particularly troubling given the statements made by the company on its security and privacy page.

Cloud backup providers do not need to design their products this way. Spideroak and Tarsnap are two competing services that encrypt their users' data with a key only known to that user. These companies have opted to put their users' privacy first, but the side effect is that they require more back-end storage space. If 20 users upload the same file, both companies upload and store 20 copies of that file (and in fact, they have no way of knowing if a user is uploading something that another user has backed up).

Why is this a problem?

As Ashkan Soltani was able to test in just a few minutes, it is possible to determine if any given file is already stored by one or more Dropbox users, simply by observing the amount of data transferred between your own computer and Dropbox's servers. If the file isn't already stored by Dropbox, the entire file will be uploaded. If Dropbox has the file already, just a few kb of communication will occur.

While this doesn't tell you which other users have uploaded this file, presumably Dropbox can figure it out. I doubt they'd do it if asked by a random user, but when presented with a court order, they could be forced to.

What this means, is that from the comfort of their desks, law enforcement agencies or copyright trolls can upload contraband files to Dropbox, watch the amount of bandwidth consumed, and then obtain a court order if the amount of data transferred is smaller than the size of the file.

Last year, the New York Attorney General announced that Facebook, MySpace and IsoHunt had agreed to start comparing every image uploaded by a user to an AG supplied database of more than 8000 hashes of child pornography. It is easy to imagine a similar database of hashes for pirated movies and songs, ebooks stripped of DRM, or leaked US government diplomatic cables.

Responsible Disclosure

On April 1, 2011, Marcia Hofmann at the Electronic Frontier Foundation contacted Dropbox to let them know about the flaw, and that a researcher would be publishing the information on April 12th. There are plenty of horror stories of security researchers getting threatened by companies, and so I hoped that by keeping my identity a secret, and having an EFF attorney notify the company about the flaw, that I would reduce my risk of trouble.

At 6:15PM west coast time on April 11th, an attorney from Fenwick & West retained by Dropbox left Marcia a voicemail message, in which he reveled that: "the company is updating their privacy policy and security overview that is on the website to add further detail."

Marcia spoke with the company's attorney this morning, and was told that the company will be updating its privacy policy and security overview to clarify that if Dropbox receives a warrant, it has the ability to remove its own encryption to provide data to law enforcement.

While I want to praise the company for being willing to clarify the security statements made on its website, I hope this will be a first step on this issue, and not the last.

It is unlikely that the millions of existing Dropbox users will stumble across the new privacy policy in their regular web browsing. As such, the company should send out an email to its users to let them know about this flaw, and advise them of the steps they can take if they are concerned about the privacy of their data.

I also urge the company to abandon its deduplication system design, and embrace strong encryption with a key only known to each user. Other online backup services have done it for some time. This is the only real way that data can be secure in the cloud.

DEA rejects FOIA for 38 pages of docs related to Sprint's digital surveilance API

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:59:00 +0000

As some of my regular readers know, in October 2009, I attended an invitation-only surveillance industry conference in Washington DC. It was at that event where I recorded an executive from Sprint bragging about the 8 million GPS queries his company delivered via a special website to law enforcement agencies in a 13 month period.

At that same event, Paul W. Taylor, the manager of Sprint/Nextel’s Electronic Surveillance team revealed that the wireless carrier also provides a next-generation surveillance API to law enforcement agencies, allowing them to automate and digitally submit their requests for user data:

"We have actually our LSite [Application Programming Interface (API)] is, there is no agreement that you have to sign. We give it to every single law enforcement manufacturer, the vendors, the law enforcement collection system vendors, we also give it to our CALEA vendors, and we've given it to the FBI, we've given it to NYPD, to the Drug Enforcement Agency. We have a pilot program with them, where they have a subpoena generation system in-house where their agents actually sit down and enter case data, it gets approved by the head guy at the office, and then from there, it gets electronically sent to Sprint, and we get it ... So, the DEA is using this, they're sending a lot and the turn-around time is 12-24 hours. So we see a lot of uses there."

My PhD research is focused on the relationship between communications and applications service providers and the government, and the way that these companies voluntarily facilitate (or occasionally, resist) surveillance of their customers. As such, this sounded pretty interesting, and so on December 3, 2009, I filed a FOIA request with the DEA to get documents associated with the Sprint LSite API and the DEA's use of the system.

On March 8, 2011, I received a letter (pdf) from the DEA, telling me that although they found 38 pages of relevant material, they are withholding every single page.

I will of course be appealing this rejection, either by myself, or with any luck, someone experienced with FOIA appeals and litigation will contact me and offer to help.

It is bad enough that Sprint is bending over backwards to assist the government in its surveillance of Sprint customers, but what is even worse, is that the DEA is refusing to allow the public to learn anything about this program. If, as Mr Taylor suggested, there is a computer in every DEA office connected directly to Sprint's computer systems, the public has a right to know.

The negative impact of AT&T's purchase of T-Mobile on the market for privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:25:00 +0000

Yesterday, AT&T announced that it will be purchasing T-Mobile, the fourth largest wireless carrier in the US. While there are many who have raised antitrust concerns about this deal due to the impact it will have on the price of wireless services and mobile device/application choice, I want to raise a slightly different concern: the impact this will have on privacy.

While it is little known to most consumers, T-Mobile is actually the most privacy preserving of the major wireless carriers. As I described in a blog post earlier this year, T-Mobile does not have or keep IP address logs for its mobile users. What this means is that if the FBI, police or a civil litigant wish to later learn which user was using a particular IP address at a given date and time, T-Mobile is unable to provide the information.

In comparison, Verizon, AT&T and Sprint all keep logs regarding the IP addresses they issue to their customers, and in some cases, even the individual URLs of the pages viewed from handsets.

While privacy advocates encourage companies to retain as little data about their customers as possible, the Department of Justice wants them to retain identifying IP data for long periods of time. Enough so that T-Mobile was called out (albeit not by name) by a senior DOJ official at a data retention hearing at the House Judiciary Committee back in January:

"One mid-size cell phone company does not retain any records, and others are moving in that direction."

If and when the Federal government approves this deal, T-Mobile's customers and infrastructure will likely be folded into the AT&T mothership. As a result, T-Mobile's customers will lose their privacy preserving ISP, and instead have their online activities tracked by AT&T.

After this deal goes through, there will be three major wireless carriers, all of whom have solid track records of being hostile to privacy:

AT&T, a company that voluntarily participated in the Bush-era warrantless wiretapping program in which it illegally disclosed its customers communications to the National Security Agency.

Verizon, a company that similarly voluntarily participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, and then when sued by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argued in court that it had free speech right protected by the 1st Amendment to disclose that data to the NSA.

Sprint, a company that established a website so that law enforcement agencies would no longer have to go through the trouble of seeking the assistance of Sprint employees in order to locate individual Sprint customers. This website was then used to ping Sprint users more than 8 million times in a single year.

The market for privacy

Today, privacy is largely an issue risk mitigation for firms. Chief Privacy Officers are tasked with protecting against data breaches, and class action lawsuits related to the 3rd party cookies that litter companies' homepages. The privacy organizations within companies do not bring in new customers, or improve the bottom line, but protect the firm from regulators and class action lawyers.

Recently, there are signs that this may be changing. Microsoft and Mozilla are now visibly competing on privacy features such as "Do Not Track" built into their web browsers. Several venture capital firms have invested cash into firms like Reputation.com and Abine who are selling privacy enhancing products to consumers.

To be clear, the market for privacy is in its infancy. As such, the government should be doing everything possible to nurture and encourage such growth. It is for that reason that the FTC should not permit the one and only privacy protecting major wireless carrier to be swallowed up by AT&T, a company that has repeatedly violated the privacy of its customers.

The FTC should lead the government's investigation into this deal, and should reject it on privacy grounds

When the FTC approved Google's merger with Doubeclick in 2007, then Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour raised the issue of privacy in her dissent (pages 9-12). As I think history now confirms, the FTC erred in ignoring Commissioner Harbour and not considering the issue of privacy in the Google deal. However, many of her comments similarly apply to the AT&T/T-Mobile deal.

While the FTC cannot turn back the clock on Google/Doubleclick, it can and should protect the privacy of the millions of T-Mobile subscribers. The FTC should block this merger. However, even if the deal is permitted to go through, the FTC should at least extract strict privacy guarantees from AT&T that include a policy of not retaining IP address allocation or other Internet browsing logs.

If the FTC, Commerce Department and Congress want the market to provide privacy to consumers, then they need to make sure that consumers have options in this area. Without options, informed consumers cannot vote with their wallets. Companies that choose to go the extra mile to protect privacy should be rewarded for doing so, and not, when the market for privacy is so young, be swallowed up by those that steamroll over their customers' desire to keep their data safe.

Federal judge in Twitter/Wikileaks case rules that consumers read privacy policies

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 01:13:00 +0000

Earlier this afternoon, a federal magistrate judge issued an order in the much-hyped Twitter/Wikileaks case. While I will leave it to others in the media to analyze the order and its impact, I do want to focus on one specific issue.

The three individuals who objected to having their Twitter account records obtained by the government (referred to in the order as the petitioners) raised an interesting 4th amendment claim regarding their IP address information. Building on recent developments in the area of location privacy (where the 3rd circuit ruled that consumers do not knowingly transmit their location information to phone companies, because they generally don't understand the technical details of how phones work), the individuals here claimed that they didn't realize that they were conveying their IP addresses to Twitter, and thus maintained a privacy interest in this information.

The judge didn't buy this argument at all -- but rather than focusing on the fact that two of the individuals are skilled security experts who obviously understand how IP addresses work, she instead based her decision on Twitter's privacy policy. From page 13 of her order:

In an attempt to distinguish the reasoning of Smith v. Maryland and Bynum, petitioners content that Twitter users do not directly, visibly, or knowingly convey their IP addresses to the website, and thus maintain a legitimate privacy interest. This is inaccurate. Before creating a Twitter account, readers are notified that IP addresses are among the kinds of "Log Data" that Twitter collects, transfers and manipulates. See Warshak, 2010 recognizing that internet service provider's notice of intent to monitor subscribers' emails diminishes expectation of privacy). Thus, because petitioners voluntarily conveyed their IP addresses to Twitter as a condition of use, they have no legitimate Fourth Amendment privacy interest.

A footnote below the paragraph states further that:

At the hearing, petitioners suggested that they did not read or understand Twitter's Privacy Policy, such that any conveyance of IP addresses to Twitter was involuntary. This is unpersuasive. Internet users are bound by the terms of click-through agreements made online. A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 544 F.Supp.2d 473,480 (E.D. Va. 2008) (finding a valid "clickwrap" contract where users clicked "I Agree" to acknowledge their acceptance of the terms) (aff'd A.V. ex rel v. iParadigms, LLC, F.3d 630,645 n.8 (4th Cir. 2009). By clicking on "create my account", petitioners consented to Twitter's terms of use in a binding "clickwrap" agreement to turn over to Twitter their IP addresses and more.

Twitter's privacy policy

The facts here are quite a bit different than the Vanderhye v. iParadigms case that the judge cites. I will leave it to legal scholars to pick apart and analyze those differences. Instead, I want to highlight the Twitter sign up process, and then a few other facts which make it clear that it is absolutely insane to assume that consumers have read privacy policies, when all available evidence (and statements by several senior government officials) suggests the opposite.

When you sign up for a Twitter account, you are shown a copy of the 200-line Terms of Service, in a text-box which displays 5 lines of text at a time. Users are not required to scroll to the bottom, or click a checkbox acknowledging that they have read the terms. Instead, right above the clickable "Create My Account" button, there is the following line of text:

By clicking on "Create my account" below, you are agreeing to the Terms of Service above and the Privacy Policy.

The Twitter terms of service do not actually include any mention of IP addresses. Instead, it is Twitter's privacy policy that includes the following section of text in its sixth paragraph:

Log Data: Our servers automatically record information ("Log Data") created by your use of the Services. Log Data may include information such as your IP address, browser type, the referring domain, pages visited, and search terms. Other actions, such as interactions with advertisements, may also be included in Log Data.

Although the judge states in her order that "[b]efore creating a Twitter account, readers are notified that IP addresses are among the kinds of 'Log Data' that Twitter collects, transfers and manipulates," that isn't entirely true.

It would be far more accurate to say that before creating a Twitter account, users are presented a link to a privacy policy, which includes a statement six paragraphs down about IP address collection. Users are further told that by clicking on a button to create the account, that they acknowledge that they read the linked privacy policy, although Twitter does not actually take any steps to make sure that users clicked on the link or scrolled through the content on that page.

Of course, it wouldn't really matter if Twitter forced people to click on the privacy policy, or scroll through the page, because everyone knows that consumers won't actually read through the text.

The FTC and Supreme Court discuss privacy policies

In introductory remarks at a privacy roundtable in December 2009, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Leibowitz told those assembled in the room that:

We all agree that consumers don’t read privacy policies – or EULAs, for that matter.

Similarly, in a August 2009 interview, David Vladeck, the head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection told the New York Times that:

Disclosures are now written by lawyers, they’re 17 pages long. I don’t think they’re written principally to communicate information; they’re written defensively. I’m a lawyer, I’ve been practicing law for 33 years. I can’t figure out what the hell these consents mean anymore. And I don’t believe that most consumers either read them, or, if they read them, really understand it. Second of all, consent in the face of these kinds of quote disclosures, I’m not sure that consent really reflects a volitional, knowing act.

Even the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court has weighed in the issue, albeit only in a speech before students in Buffalo, NY last year. Answering a student question, Roberts admitted he doesn’t usually read the terms of service or privacy polices, according to the Associated Press:

It has "the smallest type you can imagine and you unfold it like a map," he said. "It is a problem," he added, "because the legal system obviously is to blame for that." Providing too much information defeats the purpose of disclosure, since no one reads it, he said. "What the answer is," he said, "I don’t know."

Academic research on privacy policies

Among 222 study participants of the 2007 Golden Bear Omnibus Survey, the Samuelson Clinic found that only 1.4% reported reading EULAs often and thoroughly, 66.2% admit to rarely reading or browsing the contents of EULAs, and 7.7% indicated that they have not noticed these agreements in the past or have never read them.

Similarly, a survey of more than 2000 people by Harris Interactive in 2001 found that more than 60 percent of consumers said they had either "spent little or no time looking at websites' privacy policies" or "glanced through websites' privacy policies, but . . . rarely read them in depth." Of those individuals surveyed, only 3 percent said that "most of the time, I carefully read the privacy policies of the websites I visit."

However, while the vast majority of consumers don't read privacy policies, some do seem to notice the presence of a privacy policy on a company's website. Unfortunately, most Americans incorrectly believe that the phrase privacy policy signifies that their information will be kept private. A 2003 survey by Annenberg found that 57% of 1,200 adults who were using the internet at home agreed or agreed strongly with the statement "When a web site has a privacy policy, I know that the site will not share my information with other websites or companies." In the 2005 survey, questioners asked 1,200 people whether that same statement is true or false. 59% answered it is true.

Even if consumers were interested in reading privacy policies -- doing so would likely consume a significant amount of their time. A research team at Carnegie Mellon University calculated the time to read the privacy policies of the sites used by the average consumer, and determined that:

[R]eading privacy policies carry costs in time of approximately 201 hours a year, worth about $2,949 annually per American Internet user. Nationally, if Americans were to read online privacy policies word–for–word, we estimate the value of time lost as about $652 billion annually.

Finally, even if consumers took the time to try and read privacy policies, it is quite likely that many would not be capable of understanding them. In 2004, a team of researchers analyzed the content of 64 popular website's privacy policies, and calculated the reading comprehension skills that a reader would need to understand them. Their research revealed that:

Of the 64 policies examined, only four (6%) were accessible to the 28.3% of the Internet population with less than or equal to a high school education. Thirty-five policies (54%) were beyond the grasp of 56.6% of the Internet population, requiring the equivalent of more than fourteen years of education. Eight policies (13%) were beyond the grasp of 85.4% of the Internet population, requiring the equivalent of a postgraduate education. Overall, a large segment of the population can only reasonably be expected to understand a small fragment of the policies posted.

Conclusion

I don't know the caselaw well enough to say if the judge was correct in stating that clickwraps that link to privacy policies are binding. However, even if there is caselaw supporting this decision, it is in no way supported by evidence of actual consumer behavior, or common sense. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn't read privacy policies, how can we expect this of regular consumers?

Deconstructing the CALEA hearing

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:45:00 +0000

Last Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing focused on law enforcement surveillance of modern Internet services.

Although both the New York Times and CNET have stories on the hearing, I don't think either publication covered the important details (nor did they take the time to extract and post video clips).

The FBI is no longer calling for encryption backdoors

When Charlie Savage at the New York Times first broke the news last year that law enforcement officials were seeking more surveillance capabilities, it seemed quite clear that the FBI wanted to be able to access to encrypted communications. Consider, for example, this statement by the General Counsel of the FBI:

"No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order," Ms. Caproni said. "They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text."

That threat spooked the hell out of a lot of people in the privacy community and at technology companies. However, in the months that followed, rumors started to circulate that as a result of negotiations within the administration encryption was now "off the table."

Thus, many of us in Washington were not entirely surprised to see Ms. Caproni walk back her previous statements on encryption when she testified last Thursday:

Law enforcement (or at least, the FBI) has not suggested that CALEA should be expanded to cover all of the Internet...

But lets turn directly to encryption. Encryption is a problem. It is a problem we see for certain providers. Its not the only problem.

If I don't communicate anything else today, I want to make sure that everyone understands. This is a multifaceted problem. And encryption is one element of it, but it is not the entire element. There are services that are not encrypted, that do not have an intercept solution. So it's not a problem of them being encrypted. It's a problem of the provider being able to isolate the communications and deliver them to us in a reasonable way so that they are usable in response to a court order...

There are individual encryption problems that have to be dealt with on an individual basis. The solution to encryption that is part of CALEA. Which says that if the provider is encrypting the communications, and so if they have the ability to decrypt and give them in the clear, then they're they're obligated to do that. That basic premise. That provider imposed encryption, that the provider can give us communications in the clear, they should do that. We think that is the right model. No one's suggesting that Congress should re-enter the encryption battles that were fought in the late 90's, and talk about sequestered keys or escrowed keys and the like. That is no what this is about.

Why the FBI doesn't really need encryption back doors

The bit of CALEA that she is talking about is 47 USC 1002(b)(3), which states that:

A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

US law is surprisingly clear on the topic of encryption -- companies are free to build it into their products, and if they don't have the decryption key, they can't be forced to deliver their customers' unencrypted communications or data to law enforcement agencies.

While Skype uses some form of proprietary end-to-end encryption (although it should be noted that the security experts I've spoken to don't trust it), and RIM uses encryption for its Enterprise Blackberry messaging suite, the vast majority of services that consumers use today are not encrypted. Those few services that do use encryption, such as Google's Gmail, only use it to protect the data in transit from the user's browser to Google's servers. Once Google receives it, the data is stored in the clear.

There is one simple reason for this, which I described in a law journal article last year ago:

It is exceedingly difficult to monetize a data set that you cannot look at. Google’s popular Gmail service scans the text of individual emails, and algorithmically displays relevant advertisements next to the email. When a user receives an email from a friend relating to vacation plans, Google can display an advertisement for hotels near to the destination, rental cars or travel insurance. If those emails are encrypted with a key not known to Google, the company is unable to scan the contents and display related advertising. Sure, the company can display generic advertisements unrelated to the user’s communications contents, but these will be far less profitable.

Google’s Docs service, Microsoft’s Hotmail, Adobe’s Photoshop Express, Facebook, and MySpace are all made available for free. Google provides its users with gigabytes of storage space, yet doesn’t charge a penny for the service. These companies are not charities, and the data centers filled with millions of servers required to provide these services cost real money. The companies must be able to pay for their development and operating costs, and then return a profit to their shareholders. Rather than charge their users a fee, the firms have opted to monetize their user’s private data. As a result, any move to protect this data will directly impact the companies’ ability to monetize it and thus turn a profit. Barring some revolutionary developments from the cryptographic research community, advertising based business models are fundamentally incompatible with private key encrypted online data storage services.

Robert Scoble also addressed this very same issue last year, writing about the reasons why major location based services have not adopted privacy preserving technologies:

Well, there’s huge commercial value in knowing where you’re located and [service providers] just aren't willing to build really private systems that they won’t be able to get at the location info. Think about a Foursquare where only your friends would be able to see where you were, but that Foursquare couldn’t aggregate your location together with other people, or where it wouldn’t be able to know where you are itself. They wouldn't be able to offer you deals near you when you check in, the way it does today.

The FBI knows that most services are not going to be using full end-to-end encryption, and as such, there is not much to be gained by fighting a public battle over encryption backdoors. In her testimony on Thursday, Ms. Caproni drove this point home:

We're suggesting that if the provider has the communications in the clear and we have a wiretap order, that the provider should give us those communications in the clear.

For example, Google for the last 9 months has been encrypting all GMail. As it travels over the internet, its encrypted. We think that's great. We also know that Google has those communications, and in response to a wiretap order, they should give them to us, in the clear.

Privacy by design vs. insecurity by design

In the report it issued in December, the Federal Trade Commission called on companies to embrace "privacy by design":

[C]ompanies should adopt a "privacy by design" approach by building privacy protections into their everyday business practices. Such protections include providing reasonable security for consumer data, collecting only the data needed for a specific business purpose, retaining data only as long as necessary to fulfill that purpose, safely disposing of data no longer being used, and implementing reasonable procedures to promote data accuracy.

Building encryption into products, turning it on by default, and using it to protect all data is the ultimate form of privacy by design. While the FTC is encouraging firms to embrace this philosophy, the FBI is betting that poor security will remain the default. Sure, a few individuals will know how to encrypt their data, but the vast majority will not. It is because of this that the FBI can avoid a fight over encryption. Why bother, when so little data is encrypted?

Consider Ms. Caproni's argument:

There will always be criminals, terrorists and spies who use very sophisticated means of communications that create very specific problems for law enforcement. We understand that there are times when you need to design an individual solution for an individual target. That's what those targets present. We're looking for a better solution for most of our targets, and the reality is I think sometimes we want to think that criminals are a lot smarter than they really are. Criminals tend to be somewhat lazy, and a lot of times, they will resort to what is easy.

So long as we have a solution that will get us the bulk of our targets. The bulk of criminals, the bulk of terrorists, the bulk of spies, we will be ahead of the game. We can't have to design individualized solutions as though they were sophisticated targets, who was self-encrypting, putting very difficult encryption algorithm on, for every target we find. Because not every target is not using such sophisticated communications.

While I understand her perspective, the problem I have is that her description of criminals as "lazy" people who use technology that is "easy" similarly describes the vast majority of the general public. As such, for the FBI's plan to work, encryption technology needs to be kept out of the hands of the general public in order to similarly keep it out of the hands of lazy criminals.

If encryption is off the table, what is the FBI after?

During the hearing Ms. Caproni noted that both RIM and Skype were foreign companies, and not subject to CALEA. She had ample opportunities to call out these companies, and instead, opted to not do so. As such, at least right now, it looks like the two firms may be safe.

As such, with Skype, RIM, and the general encryption issue off the table, you must be wondering, what exactly does the FBI want? From what I can gather, quite a few things, many of which impact privacy in a big way, but which will lead to far less press than those other high profile issues.

Ms. Caproni didn't name names at the hearing, but it is pretty easy to identify the companies and services that she and her colleagues are interested in.

Real-time interception of cloud services. Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter are all legally required to provide after-the-fact access to their customers' stored data, in response to a valid legal process. The law does not require them to provide real-time interception capabilities. What this means is that while the government can go to Google and ask for all searches conducted by a particular user, they can't ask for all future searches or Google Chat instant message communications. These companies are under intense pressure to provide such real-time, prospective access to user data.

Voice services that do not connect to the public telephone network. Google and Facebook both offer in-network audio chat to their users (Google also offers video). Microsoft's XBox 360 service, Blizzard and several other online video game platforms allow users to ~~insult each other~~ chat while they play against other users online. At least from published information, I'm not aware of any one of these companies offering interception capabilities -- and so law enforcement agencies almost certainly want access to this

Virtual Private Network (VPN) services. These services, many of them paid, are increasing in popularity among users who want a bit of privacy when they surf. They enable users to browse the web when using unsecured public WiFi networks without having to worry about hackers stealing their data; browse the web at home without having to worry about their broadband Internet Service Provider using Deep Packet Inspection technology to spy on them; access streaming content that is restricted by country (for example, allowing foreigners to watch hulu, or US residents to watch the BBC); and download files from P2P networks without having to worry about Hollywood studios, record labels and porn companies suing them.

Many users turn to these commercial VPN services in order to obtain privacy online, and it is because of this that many services have strict no-logging policies. They do not know what their users are doing online, and don't want to know. However, many of these services are based in the US (or at least, have many servers in US datacenters), and could very easily keep logs if they were forced to do so.

What happens next?

Last week's hearing was just the first step in what will likely be a long battle. There will be more hearings, and eventually, the FBI will return with draft legislation. In the mean time, all the major tech companies in Silicon Valley will no doubt continue to engage in private, high-pressure negotiations with senior FBI officials who will tell them they can avoid new legislation by voluntarily building new surveillance capabilities into their products.

No New Surveillance Powers For The War On Drugs

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:45:00 +0000

At two hearings over the past month, including one yesterday, senior officials from the Department of Justice asked Congress to significantly expand its ability to monitor and investigate the online communications of Americans.

Law enforcement officials claim that it is too difficult to snoop on users of modern services like Skype, Blackberry, Facebook and Google, as the companies have not built wiretap capabilities into their services. The Department of Justice would also like wireless and residential Internet Service Providers to keep records that would make it easier to determine after-the-fact which particular customer visited specific websites.

These officials argue that technology companies should be required to build new surveillance capabilities in order to more effectively investigate child pornographers and terrorists. This is a politically savvy argument, as no member of Congress will want to risk appearing weak on terrorism or child pornography.

The reality is that most law enforcement surveillance powers are used in support of the war on drugs, not to investigate terrorists or pedophiles. As such, Congress should first demand reliable statistics on law enforcement’s existing Internet surveillance activities before even considering the FBI’s request for more powers.

The American public may be willing to give up their privacy and civil liberties in order to actually prevent terrorism and the sexual exploitation of children. This deal is far less attractive if the new surveillance powers will instead be used to to continue a failed prohibition opposed by millions of Americans.

Statistics are useful

Each year, federal and state law enforcement agencies obtain thousands of court orders that allow them to secretly wiretap the telephones of American citizens. We know this because Congress requires annual reports regarding the use of these surveillance powers.

The first documented instances of law enforcement wiretaps were used to investigate bootleggers during the prohibition. Decades later, as the wiretap reports confirm, the vast majority of intercepts are used to enforce our modern day prohibition: the war on drugs. For example, of the 2,376 wiretap orders issued in 2009, 86% (2,046) were obtained as part of narcotics investigations.

Similarly, of the 763 “sneak and peek” search warrants obtained in 2009, 474 were obtained in investigations of drugs, and only 3 were used in investigations of terrorism. These surveillance orders allow government agents to search a home without telling the owner or resident until weeks or months later. Law enforcement agencies were given this authority as part of the Patriot Act, after the Department of Justice claimed that the powers were necessary to allow “law enforcement to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.” However, a report published by the Administrative Office of the Courts in 2009 revealed that the powers are primarily used to investigate drugs, not terrorism.

Unfortunately, while accurate statistics exist for wiretaps, and for the sneak and peek authority granted as part of the Patriot Act, we are largely in the dark regarding most of the tens of thousands of requests made each year to phone companies and Internet service providers. There are no statistics that document law enforcement requests for email, instant messaging, social network profiles, search engine history, or geographic location information from mobile phones.

Not only do we have no way of knowing the total number of requests made by law enforcement officers each year, but we also do not know what kinds of crimes they are investigating. Instead, all we have are unverifiable anecdotes from law enforcement officials, who selectively reveal them in order to justify their push for increased surveillance powers.

If the statements of law enforcement officials are to be believed, most of their online investigations involve child pornography. However, the published statistics for other forms of surveillance suggest that they are likely in support of the war on drugs. The only way to be sure would be for Congress to require the collection and publication of statistics covering law enforcement agencies’ surveillance of Internet applications and communications. As Senator Leahy noted more than 10 years ago, surveillance statistics serve as a “more reliable basis than anecdotal evidence on which to assess law enforcement needs and make sensible policy in this area.”

Rather than granting the Department of Justice the sweeping new surveillance powers it seeks, Congress should first seek and obtain detailed reports on the use of modern surveillance techniques. There is no need to rush the passage of new authority; especially since, as the debate over the renewal of the Patriot Act has clearly demonstrated, rolling back powers is much tougher than granting new ones.

CALEA: It is about the money

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher Soghoian) — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 03:50:00 +0000

Cash Rules Everything Around Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all
-- Wu Tang Clan

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the topic of CALEA, and the FBI's desire to get backdoors in modern services like Skype, Google, Facebook and RIM's Blackberry. The mass adoption of these services, the FBI claims, is leading to a situation where law enforcement agencies have "gone dark," and lost the ability to intercept the communications of suspects in real time.

This is not the first time that the FBI has come to Congress to ask for increased surveillance powers -- The FBI spent a good part of the 90s sending people to Capitol Hill, asking for backdoors in encryption.

What does surprise me is that the tech companies are nowhere to be seen, and have not deployed anyone publicly to fight this proposal. Compare this, for a moment, to the cloud computing privacy hearing held by the same House Committee last September, where Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Rackspace and Salesforce all sent executives to argue for stronger privacy laws.

Last year, those companies were vocally asking for stronger privacy laws that would make it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to access their customers' data. Now, these same firms are being asked to put backdoors in their services, and make it easier for the government to snoop on their customers. Are they fighting this? No.

Instead, they are hiding behind industry-funded advocacy groups, like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which has written a softly-worded statement of concern.

Google, Microsoft and Facebook have excellent, well-funded teams of lobbyists. The fact that they are not appearing at the hearing tomorrow and have not issued any public statements about the topic is a clear sign that these companies are doing everything possible to keep a low profile on this issue.

If I had to guess why, I suspect that they don't want to do anything to upset Congress, particularly now that topic of commercial privacy is very much on the legislative agenda. If they put their foot down on CALEA, they may find themselves with few friends when members start considering bills to limit behavioral advertising.

Priority #1: Gotta get paid

When Congress passed CALEA in 1994, it set aside $500 million to help with the cost of designing and deploying wiretap capable networking equipment. Unfortunately, as 2008 DOJ Inspector General report (pdf) revealed, it was not possible to tell if the money was well-spent, since neither the telecoms nor the switch makers were willing to share the necessary information.

With that in mind, this bullet point from CDT's statement of concern caught my eye:

"Avoid unfunded mandates: The costs of implementing any new proposals should be borne by the government."

While tech companies aren't particularly crazy about adding new snooping capabilities into their services, they are even less excited about having to eat the financial cost of developing and deploying those backdoors.

Even though CDT seems to think otherwise, there are strong policy advantages to sticking companies with these costs. The most important one being that Google and Facebook are far more likely to take a strong position against CALEA II if they are going to get stuck with the check. If these firms know they are going to get millions of dollars for upfront surveillance development, they are far less likely to fight, and will instead spend more of their time haggling over the details, and in particular, lobbying for a larger payout with less oversight.

Charging the government for individual requests is good

"When I can follow the money, I know how much of something is being consumed - how many wiretaps, how many pen registers, how many customer records. Couple that with reporting, and at least you have the opportunity to look at and know about what is going on.
-- Albert Gidari Jr., Keynote Address: Companies Caught in the Middle, 41 U.S.F. L. Rev. 535, Spring 2007.

This is not to say that I am opposed to companies making the government pay for the assistance they are legally required to provide. I just think that the payment should be associated with specific investigations and requests, rather than a huge cash payment for developing and deploying surveillance capabilities.

The reason for this is that invoices for surveillance serve as a fantastic paper trail documenting the scope and scale of government snooping. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, I have obtained invoices from both Google and Yahoo, which detailed the kinds of requests they were getting, and helped me to discover that the US Marshals have essentially granted themselves a new surveillance power that is not in the law.

Charging for law enforcement assistance also tends to limit their use to only those records necessary. As Al Gidari told the House Judiciary Committee in testimony last year:

When records are "free," such as with phone records, law enforcement over consumes with abandon. Pen register print outs, for example, are served daily on carriers without regard to whether the prior day's output sought the same records. Phone record subpoenas often cover years rather than shorter, more relevant time periods. But when service providers charge for extracting data, such as log file searches, law enforcement requests are more tailored.

It is for these reasons that I have pleaded with attorneys at Microsoft and Facebook to start charging the government. Even though the law permits them to do so, both firms currently deliver user data to law enforcement agencies for free.

Recoup the high costs of surveillance technology though high per-request fees

A 2006 report from the DOJ Inspector General revealed that:

One carrier informed us that most of the costs it billed to law enforcement are for overtime and recovery of capitalized hardware and software costs. These representatives stated that capital costs are the major costs incurred by a carrier, and that these costs are entirely proper for carriers to recover.

For once, I actually agree with the carriers. If they had to spend millions of dollars deploying CALEA compliant intercept equipment, then it is only reasonable that they recoup it by charging $3500 for a 30 day wiretap (as Cox communications does).

The problem with charging $3500 for a wiretap, is that the police will complain, as this money comes out of their budget. The same 2006 Inspector General report confirmed this:

Law enforcement's biggest complaint regarding CALEA is the relatively high fees charged by carriers to conduct electronic surveillance. A traditional wiretap costs law enforcement approximately $250. However, a wiretap with CALEA features costs law enforcement approximately $2,200 according to law enforcement officials and carrier representatives we interviewed. A law enforcement official noted that, "[w]ith CALEA, the carriers do less work but it costs approximately 10 times as much to do a CALEA-compliant tap versus a traditional tap."

If Congress is considering spending another $500 million on CALEA II (and I hope it doesn't), it should give it out in grants to state and local law enforcement agencies. Give them each a pool of money, and let them decide how they want to spend it. If they want to use it to hire more officers, or buy body armor, that is their choice. If they want to pay for CALEA II wiretaps provided by Google, Facebook and Skype, well, that is their choice too. In the real world, there are opportunity costs associated with every purchase, and the police should have to experience these too. Surveillance should be expensive -- that is the best way to make sure these powers are not overused, or abused. Unfortunately, at just $25 for an individual user's account, Google and Yahoo are not charging nearly enough.