This time, an IBM researcher told Black Hat conference attendees that these openings can still expose information about us to hackers and allow them to "watch" our Internet activity.

Cisco backdoor still open | NetworkWorld.com Community

Activists have long grumbled about the privacy implications of the legal "backdoors" that networking companies like Cisco build into their equipment--functions that let law enforcement quietly track the Internet activities of criminal suspects. Now an IBM researcher has revealed a more serious problem with those backdoors: They don't have particularly strong locks, and consumers are at risk.

In a presentation at the Black Hat security conference Wednesday, IBM ( IBM - news - people ) Internet Security Systems researcher Tom Cross unveiled research on how easily the "lawful intercept" function in Cisco's ( CSCO - news - people ) IOS operating system can be exploited by cybercriminals or cyberspies to pull data out of the routers belonging to an Internet service provider (ISP) and watch innocent victims' online behavior.

Cisco's Backdoor For Hackers - Forbes.com

A scheme that gives U.S. law enforcement authorities with a warrant access to networking equipment could also be exploited by illegal snoopers.

Tom Cross, manager of X-Force research, a security unit at IBM, discovered this after reviewing details of a lawful intercept scheme used to access equipment made by the networking giant Cisco.

Technology Review: How Legal Wiretaps Could Let Hackers In

An IBM ISS researcher here today revealed major security holes in a little-known wiretapping architecture for IP networks created by Cisco Systems for law enforcement.

IBM ISS Researcher Exposes Holes In Cisco's Internet Surveillance Architecture - DarkReading

Well, apparently the search is over. The UCLA police department has updated their missing persons bulletin for Agre with the following news: "Philip Agre was located by LA County Sheriff's Department on January 16, 2010 and is in good health and is self sufficient."

Missing Internet Pioneer Phil Agre Is Found Alive - All Tech Considered - Technology News And Culture Blog : NPR

...

Helmet - Gigantor

Tehran's Revolutionary Court sentenced 11 people to death after convicting them of participating in post-election riots, state media reported Thursday.

Two of the sentences have been carried out; the rest are under appeal, the Iranian Students News Agency said, quoting a court official.

If your purpose is to scare people, is there political utility in the perception that trials are unfair and results arbitrary and severe?

Iran sentences 11 demonstrators to death - CNN.com

But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

There is a lot of technical analysis out there about the Obama-Alito exchange. I think this point is more important. The Republicans are actively attacking the court, in particular because of Roe, but also because of the "unitary executive" idea and resistance to checks and balances that informs their perspective on the GWOT. What is the impact of Obama joining in?

On a direct level, its a partisan attack on a political institution. It contributes to political divisiveness, and helps further undermine the system of checks and balances, which is the opposite of what Obama claims to be doing.

On an indirect level, it puts partisan conservatives in the odd position of defending the Supreme Court. Perhaps THAT was the intent?

In any event, they already seem to be back pedaling:

Vice President Joe Biden, appearing Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America," argued Obama "didn't question the integrity of the court. He questioned the judgment of it."

Someone recently told me that they wanted me to look at something in order to understand it, not hack into it. I'm a security vulnerability researcher. I don't understand the difference.

The Supreme Court judges things.

Randy Barnett's response to 'State of the Union: How did he do?' - The Arena | POLITICO.COM

Hoder watch...

Search Engine video podcast: Free Hossein Derakhshan, even if he's kind of a jerk! Boing Boing

noteworthy wrote:
Bob McDonnell:

Americans were shocked on Christmas Day to learn of the attempted bombing of a flight to Detroit. This foreign terror suspect was given the same legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and immediately stopped providing critical intelligence.

As Senator-elect Scott Brown says, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them.

I am frankly appalled that candidates and officials continue to score points with this rhetoric. Back in the heat of the 2008 campaign, Palin got cheers for making a quip of it, and Obama responded:

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting."

I was bothered by this too - Palindrome and I discussed it last night, it bothered her even more.

Whats odd is that as far I know there has been relatively little political hay made of the recent criminal conviction of a Georgia Tech student for providing material support for foreign terrorism. If the Republicans truly believe that all terrorism suspects should be denied trials, why aren't they speaking out about that conviction. I see two possibilities:

1. Its not politically expedient because the prosecutions where started by the Bush administration and their goal is more about scoring political points against the other party than actually articulating a substantive policy position.

2. They are drawing some kind of line. They see the two situations as being different, possibly because the Tech student was a "U.S. Person" and not a foreign national or because the nature of the offenses is different? (While people are often stalwart in the defense of their own civil liberties, the civil liberties of others are more rarely defended.)

Last night I was leaning toward 2 but now I'm leaning toward 1.

Its also worth pointing out that while the Obama administration might have better sounding political rhetoric, its not clear what their actual position is. They have decided to hold 50 detainees forever because any potential trial has been tainted by the use of torture, they've engaged in an effort to shut down Gitmo, which is both ill considered and phony, and they seem to have picked up the Bush Administration's line everywhere regarding the use of state secrets to absolve themselves of responsibility for illegal acts.

If there is some sort of substantive difference between Obama and Bush on civil liberties and the treatment of detainees its not clear to me what it is. It seems to me that both parties are offering us the exact same operational policies and the real difference is just the spin they put on what they are doing - what color bottle the sugar water comes in.

RE: Bob McDonnell's Appalling GOP Response