Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Decision in USTA vs. FCC (CALEA)
Note that this case is fundamentally about money: the telecom carriers are suing the government because they feel that the government's desired surveillance abilities (mandated under the 1996 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act; this is where Carnivore was born) are too expensive to implement. If the government provided more money (half a billion tax dollars were given to the phone companies when CALEA was passed, but the companies want more), these objections would evaporate.
So there weren't any principles of privacy involved, at least in the beginning. But some civil liberties groups have grabbed on the shirt-tails of this case to make principled arguments - that the surveillance requirements are too burdensome and intrusive in principle, not just too costly. So this is actually a good result where the Court mostly agreed with the civil liberties people that the surveillors should have to get warrants for some of the information they were seeking to get without warrants, and other information may be unavailable entirely. Note however that "call location" information (the ability of cellular carriers to report to the cops which cell phone tower your phone is registered with, and therefore, probably where you are) will still be available to law enforcement.
I think you're missing a key point: why should the government be allowed to enact hilariously idiotic legislation riddled with technical flaws and to quite patently ignore our human rights as given by ECHR?
You seem to think that just because the legislation is unenforceable, that's OK. Why? Don't you believe that people who are trusted to govern our country should be expected to go about their business in a competent way and to generate legislation in which we can be proud, rather than a foul smelling heap of rubbish?
I just can't understand your complacency. You're letting them get away with utter incompetence and total disregard for the views of the people they govern, and to ignore with impunity the opinions of those who are far more technically competent than they are.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
that kind of thing might be neat and fun, especially if you could turn it off at will... if it was just a wrist-band or something.
but as something the gov't and liberty-trampling police organizations can make use of to invade my privacy without any notice, i resent it.
it's not about whether it might be useful or fun as a toy, it's about other people having the ability to invade your privacy without you ever knowing anything about it.
i don't really want the whole world to know, for instance, what kind of porn i prefer, or even something as trivial as what stores and restaurants i frequent.
these are things that only the people i choose to tell and associate with should know, not something any little piggy can find out with the push of a few buttons.
if you don't see the threat of these kinds of things, i really don't know what to tell you except put down the crack pipe.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
ok, putting aside the fact that this can and would be used to invade the privacy of innocent people (probably more often than guilty people), even the guilty have rights until they are proven so, and that means they have rights against the methods that are used to prove them guilty.
you cannot say 'hey that guy looks like a guy who would rob a kwik-e-mart!' and then go up to him and take his fingerprints, or search his house for the clothes the robber wore.
without the requirement of getting a warrant (and even then i don't like it), these kinds of surveillance capabilities are too much power put in the hands of ignorant piggies.
attitudes like yours are facilitating the police state that we live in.
as the snooty waiter in ferris bueller says :
i weep for the future.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
This is actually a good description of how any law enforcement agency can incrementally become a force for totalitarianism. Step by step, becoming more isolated from the society they are supposed to be protecting, all in the name of trying to do their "job" effectively.
There is probably a good argument somewhere, that to try and limit the divergence, any law enforcement "agency" should structurally have some pretty strong feedback loops from the society back into the agency, even at the expense of some of the agency's efficiency.
On the other hand, it might not limit the efficiency much at all - a cooperative public with a great deal of trust in its law enforcement would probably provide a helluva lot more benefits than a public which distrusts its law enforcement and provides obstruction whereever it can get away with it (cases of which have been thoroughly documented between corrupt police departments & poor neighborhoods who don't have the power to change anything).
Cop: Yes.
Defense: How did you know to look for Mr Gambino on the docks at that place and time?
Cop: Anonymous tip.
Judge: Good enough.
Just because the FBI can not use a piece of evidence in court, does not mean they cannot use the evidence at all. And, as in my example above, with the legality of anonymous tips it no longer matters where the evidence was dug up.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Its perfectly fine that it not be required of the phone company, but triangulation should be allowed and performed under certain circumstances. The most obvious is when there is a cut off 911 call and a call-back is not answered. Depending on what if any information was transmitted before the cut off, police should be able to get the location of the phone and respond.
Of course there are those who wold assume that any ability given to LEOs will lead to random harrassment of geeks, and those who would consider even the above situation to be an invasion of privacy, but what can you do?
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
If they have a warrent to listen to the calls of either you or your priest, yes, they have the right to listen to your confessional. In the eyes of the law, your "confessional" with your preist should be no more significant than if I call a friend and say "I have to tell you something really really secret and this can't ever be known by another soul." It is a conversation with great significance to you, but in a religiously neutral state, its just another conversation between two people.
At the very most, I suppose we could consider the priest a counselor and extend whatever confidentiality privelege is given in that jurisdiction to rape crisis workers and other non-licensed therapists. But the "sanctity" that you and your priest have should have no more legal relevance than the special chant two childhood friends might use to establish a special secret-telling zone.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Apart from the fact that it is virtually impossible to intercept a cellphone transmission except in the movies (and perhaps the early nineties) using a scanner, I still think this could be abused.
Consider the situation where you have just caught a drug dealer, you could then use the cell providers to identify anyone who was in regular contact with that dealer. I think that is a pretty severe invasion of privacy.
Also you forget it's not just when you use your cellphone that it can be triangulated. My phone rarely leaves my person throughout my whole day, it even charges at night on my bedside table. Having access to cell records is like having 50% of the public wearing the electronic tags they give to sex offenders.
It's easy!!
:)
You know how they always show the phone call traces in films, and they start with a green line at the point where they are based and that slowly moves towards the point where the person is using the phone... all you have to do is keep moving and then all they have is as floating average of your position
I am not so sure that this decision is a good thing. Yes, the four items from the so-called "FBI punch list" were stricken, but two others, the ones that made EPIC concerned, were left in force.
Basically, the court has thrown out the requirement that telecom carriers capture any digit tones (made by pressing buttons on the phone keypad) trasmitted after the call has already connected. Example: calling-card calls -- the original call is to an 800 number and then, after the call has connected, you dial the number you actually want. Note that this could include also such things as bank account numbers and voicemail passwords.
However the court left in force the requirement to supply the physical location of the closest-to-the-caller antenna tower (thus providing the ability to track the caller). It also left in force the interception of packet-mode communications.
So: win some, lose some. The decision to allow tapping packet-mode communications *could* set the wrong precedent for TCP/IP interception...
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I would rather live in a society where evil is done through the failure of principles than through their success. The courts have affirmed tat, for now at least, our principles are not evil.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach