] The preexisting commercial filter had been dubbed
] "Omnivore" within the FBI, and the new filter was much
] more precise - it only took the "meat" that the tool
] was designed to capture, and did not collect any evidence
] beyond that described in the court order. As a result,
] the FBI dubbed the new privacy-enhanced tool "Carnivore."
] Of course, this isn't the story that you heard in the
] press. Privacy advocates were quick to capitalize on the
] precious gift the FBI handed them: the name itself was an
] indictment of sorts, making it easy to create the
] impression that the FBI had created a monster.

All true. I think the tool was interesting. It had quite a wide array of protocol parsers. The FBI was not as secretive about it as EPIC claimed they were. The issue is not whether the FBI has the technological capability. The FBI ought to have the capability. The issue is whether I am required to make things easy for them by building their capability into my system at my expense, and also what oversight and checks exist in the system to ensure that they aren't misusing their capability.

[Politech] Orin Kerr on why the FBI retired Carnivore