Slashdot Mirror


Verisign Offers Wiretapping Services

LinuxDeckard writes "According to this article at FindLaw, VeriSign will soon be offering its 'NetDiscovery' wire tapping services for a monthly fee. NetDiscovery will allow Telecoms to comply with court ordered wire taps." Verisign's press release is informative. This appears to be tapping of voice calls rather than internet usage. I assume it would work something like this: telecom company gets a wiretap notification from the FBI or local police; it routes all calls to/from $TARGET through a Verisign switch; Verisign does the tapping and reporting to the tappers. If you think this doesn't affect you, keep in mind that under the PATRIOT Act the barrier for wiretapping is set very low indeed.

178 comments

  1. Nothing Internet related by Burdell · · Score: 1

    s/ISP/\$TELCO/

  2. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is like, so 1984.

    When why will they stop trampling on our rights? When the private sector offers wiretapping, then the terrorists have already won.

    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, when you get your hands chopped of for stealing and women gets stoned to death because someone had raped them, then the terrorists have won.

    2. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're talking about the IRA?

      As long as the responsible citizens of the US have the freedom to murder doctors who believe in giving women the right to a safe abortion, then we'll be so much better than the Islamic fundamentalists.

      Give me an example of what someone does wrong, and I'll give you one where we do something else wrong.

    3. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, we're civilized enough now that we only humiliate rape victims in court, and suggest behind their backs that they prolly wanted/deserved/provoked it. Whew, I'm glad we've evolved that far in western civilization.

    4. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do keep in mind the reality of the terrorism or rather terrorist acts, since it's not exactly a continuous stream of bombings and kidnappings here. For the most part, those who would do us harm do so because they hate the same things about us that we hate about ourselves. The inequitable distribution of wealth, the mixing and/or lack of mixing of church and state, the "money before morals or ethics" society we've built and general lack of charitability among the haves towards the have-nots.

      Free market, whacked Libertarian notions aside, will not take care of itself when what is already so entrenched is already so very bad. The terrorists will win if we resist all efforts internally or externally to make things better because then we make them right.

      They might not be offering us a touchy feely constructive criticism, but they are offering criticism that we would be stupid to ignore. By all means we should stop terrorism, but part of that requires knowing and acknowledging *why* they do these things to us.

      Meandering tangential logic aside, the terrorists win if we continue to defend our failures instead of fixing them.

    5. Re:1984 by flacco · · Score: 2
      This is like, so 1984.

      It's even worse than 1984. Instead of an ominous, stalinist-grey motif that at least conveys the nature of what's going on, they've slapped a catchy and cheery name on it - NetDiscovery! I wouldn't be surprised if they advertise this complete with Disney characters and a big fucking smiley face.

      It's so post-1984-cum-signs-of-the-impending-fall-of-the-r oman-empire.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  3. before you go berzerk... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Informative
    Remember that you have to get a court order even to get very limited wiretapping ability (like looking at where call are going to/from and not listening to them at all. There are time limits and all kinds of restrictions.) Remember what you read in the Tracking Mafiaboy article.

    This is not another carnivore.

    1. Re:before you go berzerk... by mericet · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that in Canada? different laws?

    2. Re:before you go berzerk... by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative
      Either you read the articles attached and didn't believe them, or you didn't read. I guess this is why people post "in case the server goes down". From:The PATRIOT Act link above.

      Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:

      Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied up what it has done.

      Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.

      ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.

      New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC 2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC 2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC 2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC 2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, 803, 805).

    3. Re:before you go berzerk... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2
      Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation.
      Oh, neato! Let's write the next Outlook worm, a worm whose only deed is to, once in a while (not more than 10 times an hour, please), randomly ask Google for some juicy Echelon bait... But the worm should'nt do ANYTHING ELSE, so to escape early detection...
    4. Re:before you go berzerk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you only have to go to court to get a legal tap, if you want illegal taps you can go ahead, as the FBI has done for decades under it's various "counter-intelligence" programs. If you want to avoid being illegally tapped by the authorities in the US, don't use landlines for voice calls, use throwaway prepayed cellphones, it's not a cheap solution, but if you have a view or opinion that differs from the American mainstream it is far more secure and you are far less likely to be targeted.

  4. I don't think this affects me... by delphi125 · · Score: 1

    ... I live in Europe

    1. Re:I don't think this affects me... by gylle · · Score: 2

      What if you call your aunt in the US?

    2. Re:I don't think this affects me... by delphi125 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean I have a long lost aunt? Cool!

    3. Re:I don't think this affects me... by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      Apart from the fact that we've had echelon setup to do this for years, although I think local police would need a damn good reason (i.e. suspected terrorism) to get this info.

      It sounds like Verisign would only be able to do this after the courts had awarded a proper warrent. Currently the EU is trying to force companies to store digital network data regardless of whether that data is part of a criminal case or not. Go sign this if it sounds like a bad idea to you.

    4. Re:I don't think this affects me... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Yes. Precisely. You have a long lost aunt in the United States. The message you posted was selfishly, solely an expression of your relief that you, European #4546727, do not have to worry about wiretaps because you, European #4546727, are not subject to the laws of the United States.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    5. Re:I don't think this affects me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The message you posted was selfishly, solely an expression of your relief that you, European #4546727, do not have to worry about wiretaps because you, European #4546727, are not subject to the laws of the United States.
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Hey you, user #103795, with SS 454-67-6727, should not worry about a moratorium on commas, because you, US citizen 454-67-6727, are not subject to the laws of the English language.
    6. Re:I don't think this affects me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first guy used commas right. You, on the other hand, seem to have a superfluous one after the word 'commas,' of all things.

    7. Re:I don't think this affects me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you know it's not polite to use big words like superfluous when speaking to someone who obviously isn't going to have any clue what it means?

    8. Re:I don't think this affects me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to make your post readable by all of Slushdot, try to use monosyllabic language wherever possible. Try to put in a few misspellings and grammar errors, too.

      This post brought to you by the fine people at Folgers Crystal Meth Labs

  5. This doesn't effect me. by cperciva · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I really don't care if they listen in on all my phone calls. For that matter, I don't care if the entire world listens in on all my phone calls.

    I can't remember when I last used a phone, but it certainly wasn't any time recently.

    1. Re:This doesn't effect me. by theRhinoceros · · Score: 1

      I really don't care if they listen in on all my phone calls. For that matter, I don't care if the entire world listens in on all my phone calls.

      I can't remember when I last used a phone, but it certainly wasn't any time recently.


      Then your blithe attitude is justified in this case, but for the rest of us who use our phones quite often in both our personal and professional lives we don't have the luxury of writing off the concern as a non-issue. Given Verisign's current issues with business ethics over something as non-national-security-related as domain renewal, it is cause for at least a little concern that their restraint would be equally faulty with this venture.

    2. Re:This doesn't effect me. by cperciva · · Score: 2

      your blithe attitude is justified in this case, but for the rest of us who use our phones quite often in both our personal and professional lives we don't have the luxury of writing off the concern as a non-issue.

      How does this latest news change anything? Phones are insecure. We've known that they are insecure for years.

      If you care about security, you shouldn't be using a phone anyway; if you don't care about security, this doesn't change anything.

  6. Verisign - just acting wisely by pinkUZI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's not give Verisign a hard time - they're just trying to make a buck by filling a need that is currently out there. If you really have a problem with this, you should focus on the politics that allow wire tapping in the first place and then consider taking an active role in government by contacting your Senator or Representative.

    --
    You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    1. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course, after they've made enough money to employ people to lobby for them, and buy some politicians, they will be working hard to make sure the laws don't change.

    2. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by GigsVT · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your father must have made a killing selling gas chambers during WWII.

      they're just trying to make a buck by filling a need that is currently out there

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose someone should state the obvious: selling gas chambers to the enember would get a company shut down - selling wire tapping services to companies because of one of our laws is legal and according to the populas ethical, and moral as well seems we elect representatives to make laws like this... you're a dumbass GigsVT

    4. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by eXtro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, Verisign deserves a hard time over this. In fact, if enough people find this objectionable they deserve to go out of business. Just because something happens to be legal doesn't mean that I can't find it morally or politically objectionable. Corporations have a lot more political clout than citizens, even when they use eff.org, since they can afford to hand out more large bags of cash. Part of the defense against enabling unjust wiretaps is to make it financially harmful for a company to support them.

    5. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      I suppose someone should state the obvious: selling gas chambers to the enember would get a company shut down - selling wire tapping services to companies because of one of our laws is legal and according to the populas ethical, and moral as well seems we elect representatives to make laws like this...

      you're a dumbass GigsVT


      Were you not paying attention in history class? Oppression is not carried out by criminals, but governments, usually with the support of a majority of the people.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by ibis · · Score: 1

      Clearly, its time to transfer my last VeriSign domain to my preferred registrar...

      I'd have done it already, but it's a critical domain and I needed to test the smoothness of the transfer process with one less critical - worked like a charm, but I had to make the request a second time to get them to let go of it...

    7. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, i could invoke Godwin's Law here, but i won't... Instead:

      Yeah, and how about those slimy companies that made the socks worn by the Nazis? What a bunch of scumbags!

      And the farmers who grew the corn they ate!

      And the people who made the shirts the farmers wore!

    8. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      A specific enabling technology is a lot different from providing a commodity.

      I don't think you could invoke Godwin's law, since I didn't bring it up as part of an ongoing flame war, it was my whole original point.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by roycommi · · Score: 1

      So acting in a crappy fashion, as long as they can make a buck means they should be excluded from criticism???? Stop justifying every unethical and alarming encroachment of privacy by saying, just because they make money, that makes it A-OK.

    10. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by pinkUZI · · Score: 2

      I didn't say it was OK because they make money - I said that putting them up on /. and griping isn't going to change anything, that's all...

      --
      You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    11. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      Just because something happens to be legal doesn't mean that I can't find it morally or politically objectionable.

      The problem here is that wiretapping is 100% moral and ethical -- in the context of law enforcement and a court order.

      Anyone who thinks wiretaps are always bad are not living in any sort of real world.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    12. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by xmedar · · Score: 1

      Well IBM made a killing, if you'll excuse the sick pun, helping the Nazis to mechanise mass murdered, there is an excellent book on the subject called, IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    13. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Zspdude · · Score: 1
      Awww... But we like giving Verisign a hard time. Trust big bad pinkUZI to spoil all our fun. I read Slashdot for amusement, if I want news that matters I go to the BBC. Besides, I'm a Canadian, and calling up my Senator never really helped me.

      Wiretapping is unpopular on /. and so is Verisign. When the two come together it makes for a good /. story. I applaud your effort to stay rational though.

      --
      What's in a Sig?
    14. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by TekPolitik · · Score: 2
      The problem here is that wiretapping is 100% moral and ethical -- in the context of law enforcement and a court order.

      The law does not define either moral or ethical - it defines the law, and nothing else. Usually we hope that the law reflects morals and ethics, but there are certain laws that do not.

      On the other hand, expecting Verisign to behave either morally or ethically is misguided. Verisign has repeatedly demonstrated that they don't give a damn about morals and ethics - I would rate them as far more morally corrupt than Microsoft. They do not care about the value of their services to society, and have actively set out to thwart that value in order to rake in larger profits for themselves.

      This latest move is hardly newsworthy - it's just more of the same from a company that has become corrupt, greedy and deserves no place in civilised society.

    15. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Here's a conspiracy theory for you:

      CNN and other major media corps runs dotcom crash and advises people to pull their money out of the stock market. Stock market crashes. Lots of dotcoms go under. AOL buys TimeWarner/CNN and many dotcoms, also bought netscape long before the crash. Then sells a few buildings to verisign. In the mean time Verisign has integrated themselves into every browser with their supposedly secure crypto tech and now assists the government in monitoring its citizens. And AOLTW takes icq and rolls out instant messaging phones and pagers, etc. It feels to me like some companies were able to gather a lot of technology and power in this recession and now are using it to form monopolies.

    16. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The problem here is that wiretapping is 100% moral and ethical -- in the context of law enforcement and a court order.

      Sure, just like the FBI wiretapping Martin Luther King's phone, and spying on everyone else who was behaving legally but perceived as a threat to the status quo!

      Sure, EVERYTHING a court does is 100% moral and ethical. The legal process is not rife with errors, they never convict the wrong people, they don't execute human beings in 2002 since that's barbaric (and they never make a mistake and execute an innocent person), and the police are never involved in massive numbers of incidents of brutality.

      Wake the F up. Real terrorists are hard to spy upon and infiltrate. On the other hand, politically unpopular groups are easy to spy on since they do things like file for nonprofit status, publicly post meeting times, and obey the law.

      Since the PATRIOT act was passed, and with the recently-granted new FBI spying powers, they can basically spy upon anyone anytime for any reason without meeting anywhere NEAR the legal standard of September 10th. And a lot of their powers are not subject to judicial review, and are clandestine.

      The problem is not with "wiretapping terrorists". The problem is with wiretapping everyone as a fishing expedition.

      The FBI and CIA screwed up, and what do we do? We grant them MORE powers! If they weren't doing their jobs before, giving them carte blanche is not likely to make them MORE responsible.

    17. Re:Verisign - just acting wisely by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting moderation, after all, what if the truth is "flamebait"? I say lets just drop all moderation modifiers, after all, do you really notice whether a comment is +5 Insightful, or if it is +5 Informative?

      There are only really three moderations that even have any meaning, Funny and Offtopic. All the rest are used as generic positive and negative moderations.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  7. Verisign by 1134 · · Score: 1

    Now when they start doing the internet stuff... We are supposed to trust them with our encrypted keys?

    1. Re:Verisign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Now when they start doing the internet stuff... We are supposed to trust them with our encrypted keys?

      No, you generate your own key and VeriSign never sees it.

      Think of the CALEA package as simply creating more incentives to use cryptography.

      Actually the CALEA package is there because at present the telcos have a massive problem. The government is not going to give further extensions to CALEA and if they are out of compliance they can get fined $10K per day per warrant.

      The back end of the telco service is a mess. The system was designed for a single operator with the security model being 'if you can send data to this switch you must be trusted'. That was a goodish model before they broke up the phone company and allowed anyone to become a telco with very few restrictions.

      Nobody knows the extent of unauthorized phone tapping, we do know it goes on but there is absolutely no way to measure it. At present the security is all security through obscurity. However those controls are not very deep, basically there is an open access system with some naive detection/retribution stuff. Enough to keep out the script kiddies but not a well resourced adversary.

      The real task for CALEA implementation is to introduce controls so that only authorized parties can make taps.

  8. Shouldn't bother anyone here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ..because you're all encrypting your communications, right? You're also all inquiring as to why there isn't more transparent encryption and authentication going on too, right?

    Sad I don't want to post this logged in, though.

  9. heh heh by cygnus · · Score: 2

    heh heh. michael used an environment variable.

    --
    Just raise the taxes on crack.
  10. Outsourcing Galore by quaxzarron · · Score: 1

    Today we outsource wire tapping.Tommorrow we will outsource the analysis of the wiretaps.Then outsource "crime detection and response systems" and mebbe do away with judiciary. Bah!

    What is concerning is that this is the same company that does not think twice about either law or morality when it comes to business. Mebbe with companies as liberal as Verisign we will also be able to buy wire tapping services on ebay. ~!nrk

    --
    .sig(Anarchy Rules)
    1. Re:Outsourcing Galore by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Today we outsource wire tapping.Tommorrow we will outsource the analysis of the wiretaps.Then outsource "crime detection and response systems" and mebbe do away with judiciary. Bah!

      Given the quality of work from our current law enforcement personnel, maybe that's not a bad thing.

      The problem isn't the personnel per se - most of 'em are hard-working SOBs trying to do their best, but they're are overworked, underpaid, and fettered by layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

      We don't have the money (as a society) to hire enough agents or to pay 'em what they're worth. Gubmint jobs have therefore often tended to attract a lower-skilled (or they'd find work elsewhere) and more easily-corrupted (because they need the money) worker.

      And it's the Gubmint, after all. These are the folks who raised bureaucracy to an art form. Doesn't matter who's in charge, nothing's gonna get done. Witness the INS fuckups that have been going on for years, but are only now receiving media attention.

      Next issue - why won't this (as you fear) spread to outsourcing of the law enforcement task? Well, "what's a cop?" Any citizen can make an arrest - a cop is a guy who happens to do it for a living, and who's been trained in how to do it without (a) getting killed, and (b) getting sued for taking down the wrong guy. He's paid from tax dollars because there's a lot of work involved, and there ain't much money in it, on account of criminals not necessarily having lots of money to sieze. I suppose you could go to a bounty system, but I can't see enforcement being profitable. Who wants to risk getting blown away for the $100 bounty on graffiti taggers?

      Back to the issue at hand - by outsourcing data collection to people who actually know something about technology, you increase the probability of getting the data you need. This frees up money to hire better analysts.

      Finally, and critically, unlike Gubmint drones, if a Verislime drone fscks up and wiretaps the wrong guy, or (let's outsource everything :) if issues visas to dead hijackers, you can fire his monkey ass and replace him with someone competent.

      While I understand your concerns, I think this new approach could ultimately be a win-win for both law enforcement and the public.

    2. Re:Outsourcing Galore by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      We don't have the money (as a society) to hire enough agents or to pay 'em what they're worth. Gubmint jobs have therefore often tended to attract a lower-skilled (or they'd find work elsewhere) and more easily-corrupted (because they need the money) worker.
      Actually, that's part of the anglo-saxon mindset. The most prevalent anglo-saxon collective neurosis is not trusting the State/Government.

      Anglo-saxon elected officials are generally failed businessmen (because a successfull businessman would rather be skinned and boiled alive with minced onions (hold the anchovies, please) than be seen as part of Government).

      Unelected officials are those who are not/would not be successful in private entreprise; working for the government holds so much stigma that people of quality will seldom seek governmental jobs.

      So, by that corollary, government is performed haphazardly by people of dubious quality, because nothing else is available.

      Contrast this to France, where public service carries a lot of prestige, and the most prestigious schools are those designed to churn-out high-quality public officials. There, people of quality DO seek public jobs, and the results are there: a mixed government/private economic system where State entreprises are extremely competitive and innovative, even when they compete with private entreprises.

      Better yet, many civil servants jump into politics, and when they are elected, they come to parliament well-versed in the mechanics of the civil service, thus streamlining the legislative process as it comes better suited to the executive apparatus.

      Heck, France had the fastest trains in the world for more than 20 years, and those were designed and built by a goverment-owned entreprise!!!

    3. Re:Outsourcing Galore by timeOday · · Score: 1
      "Contrast this to France, where public service carries a lot of prestige, and the most prestigious schools are those designed to churn-out high-quality public officials."

      And where the economy is perpetually in the crapper.

    4. Re:Outsourcing Galore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time I see the virtues of France extolled, the following advertisement comes to mind...



      For Sale:One WWII French Battle rifle.

      Never Used. Dropped once.

    5. Re:Outsourcing Galore by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

      The economy there goes fine; but, there are other things in life besides the economy. In France, they just don't sacrifice everything else to that one thing.

  11. Nooo, I don't want them listening.... by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

    I dunno if I can call 900 numbers now that I know that the FBI might be listening!

    1. Re:Nooo, I don't want them listening.... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 0

      Yeah--make them pay for part of the 900 call!

  12. The Irony by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is ironic that one of the sleaziest, untrustworthy companies on the internet expects people to buy "trust" in the form of digital certification from them. I suggest people remember that next time they need a certificate and instead turn to one of their competitors.

    1. Re:The Irony by mixbsd · · Score: 1

      People's memories are short. In about a year, I'll have probably forgotten about the disgraceful domain-slamming practise that VeriSign were sued over. Fortunately, Google has a very long memory when it comes to cached pages, so I always do a Google search on any company I plan to do business with beforehand. So perhaps the irony is that VeriSign is the hostname registrar for Google ;)

    2. Re:The Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but their pricing is exorbitant. $900 for a 128-bit SSL cert? For our next SSL certificate, we're going with GeoTrust, who sells a 3-year cert for $300.

      Fuck verisign! Thawte (aka verisign) also!

    3. Re:The Irony by ldeviator · · Score: 1

      I totally agree.

    4. Re:The Irony by TekPolitik · · Score: 2
      It is ironic that one of the sleaziest, untrustworthy companies on the internet expects people to buy "trust" in the form of digital certification from them. I suggest people remember that next time they need a certificate and instead turn to one of their competitors.

      Tried that, they bought the competitor, and the SEC and FTC didn't do a damned thing to stop them. In Australia the competition rules wouldn't have allowed this to happen so quickly, and the competition watchdog wouldn't allow it to happen at all. But the US authorities let it happen within the space of a couple of weeks.

      If you know of somebody not owned by Verisign who offers ActiveX and Netscape code signing certificates who has their root certificates in all major browsers, I'd switch again, but there doesn't appear to be such an animal. There are organisations that have the root certificates there, but they don't sell the code signing certificates.

  13. Re:This doesn't arouse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My anti-social Canuck friend, it'd be cool if we could "webcast" your "phone" conversations. If you "ever" plan to have "one" again some time "soon".

  14. Security by mericet · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That might be a good or bad thing, depending how you look at it:

    If any small telco needs to create a secure repository, some will not be as secure as others... and privacy might be more compromised that it should according to the wiretap order (i.e. hackers accessing the wiretapped phone calls...)

    OTOH, this is a kind of single point of failure I do not entirely like...

  15. Verint == Comverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verisign uses equipment from Verint, which is formerly known as Comverse. We all know the story about the spy network, right? (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/ 18/224826.shtml)

    1. Re:Verint == Comverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're wrong. Why would a sneaker company get involved in high-speed communication.

      Their high-cuts are great though, they have just the right amount of cushioning.

  16. Patriot Act... My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Patriot Act? That's great. The terrorists have won. Their purpose was to change our lives so we'd never be back to the way we were. We give them fame and glamour. A Patriot Act is just one more way we have proven how stupid we really are. The only way to beat the terrorists is to not let them phase us. Let's not talk about them, not care about them, and maybe they'll go away. Here we go, let's make some laws to restrict our own people. It's all bullshit.

    1. Re:Patriot Act... My Ass by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      The Patriot Act? That's great. The terrorists have won. Their purpose was to change our lives so we'd never be back to the way we were.

      Actually their purpose was to kill people.

    2. Re:Patriot Act... My Ass by Apogee · · Score: 1

      Actually their purpose was to kill people.

      No, that was not their purpose, it was their means.
      If it had been the sole purpose, I bet that could have been arranged more easily. They have an issue/agenda to push, and killing these people was their way of getting attention. Or to get revenge, whatever. But the killing itself was not the purpose.

    3. Re:Patriot Act... My Ass by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Okay then, what is their agenda? US leave the Middle East? Destruction of Israel?

  17. This is truly bizarre by xyzzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would Verisign get into such an unrelated business as this? They're not a telecom company! If CALEA-compliance is too expensive for the telcos, I can't believe that Verisign is better positioned. This is totally unrelated to their business model!

    1. Re:This is truly bizarre by signe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Verisign recently acquired Illuminet, which is the largest independant carrier switching network. So they do have a pretty big investment in telecom that plays into this pretty well.

      -Todd

      --
      "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
    2. Re:This is truly bizarre by xyzzy · · Score: 2

      Oh,wild -- I had no idea. Yup, looking at their web site, they do tons of that stuff. It still doesn't seem central to their business (their OLD business) to me, but I suppose the fact that digital certificates weren't exactly leaping off the shelf, and the domain thing would eventually come to an end, they had to look elsewhere.

    3. Re:This is truly bizarre by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Actually, Verisign recently acquired Illuminet, which is the largest independant carrier switching network. So they do have a pretty big investment in telecom that plays into this pretty well.

      I knew it was an Illumineti plot to take over the world!

    4. Re:This is truly bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth noting that VeriSign is partly owned
      by SAIC, a secretive science research company which
      was founded and is run by many members of the
      intelligence community. The company got its start
      in the nuclear weapons business back in the sixties.
      Basically VeriSign at the highest levels if very tightly
      connected with the US intelligence community,
      something to keep in mind next time you obtain any
      sort of security or encryption services from them.

      SAIC: http://www.saic.com/

    5. Re:This is truly bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know - it'd be just like them to use such an obvious name, that anyone who seriously considers it would brush this off as too obvious. "Taking Over The World: Stealth Operations", chapter 4: "Hiding In Plain Sight".

  18. Re:Verisign - fucking us up the ass since 1994 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the taste of fresh asshole in the morning

  19. Broadband by isa-kuruption · · Score: 2

    Of course, this method works EXTREMELY well for us with broadband connections....

  20. Worse than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    very low indeed

    In fact, even without the patriot act, state courts did not deny a single law enforcement request for a wiretap. Not a single one.
    --G

  21. Regulations that have gained "prominence" by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Troll

    ...to help U.S. telecommunications carriers comply with wiretapping regulations that have gained more prominence since the attacks of Sept. 11.

    I prefer to see them as regulations that were pushed through legislation by taking advantage of public fears after Sept. 11. I'm from NYC and I hear the warnings every week and occassionally still hear military fighters and helicopters fly over my home, but that batch of regulations under the Patriot Act are nothing patriotic. I want terrorists caught just as much as anyone else. Some people had been pushing for more wiretapping freedom for years. They took advantage of our fears to slip these regulations through which give too much power to our government.

    1. Re:Regulations that have gained "prominence" by Fesh · · Score: 2

      The sad bit is that the info coming out of the sessions up on the Hill tends to indicate that the FBI et. al. had all the data they needed to nab the hijackers, even as restricted as they were before USAPATRIOT was enacted.

      Tell me again why this crap is necessary to protect my "safety"? If I want to take the risk, can I opt out? *sigh*

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
  22. Re:not so terrible? by mericet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Can't people think on their own? Saying that something isn't prohibited by the constitution doesn't make it right nor wrong. It doesn't say anything.

    The only question where the constitution is silent is whether the restriction of rights (in this case privacy) is the lesser of two evils (the other evil being not catching the 'not so law abiding'). Is it? Do we believe it to be so? Is the potential for abuse of power justified? Does the end justify the means?

  23. But will it do any good? by Openadvocate · · Score: 1

    One should think that the "professionel" criminals would be smarter than that. One should think that it was only small time dudes that would blabber away on the phone etc.

    --
    my sig
    1. Re:But will it do any good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a couple days ago, it was revealed that the CIA knew 2 of the terrorists had been at terrorist meetings, but didn't tell anyone. Results: INS let them in.

      Then, the CIA had beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence linking them to the USS Cole bombing, but told no one. Result: INS reapproved their expired visas.

      They always used pay phones to make their calls, too, but called a fixed phone number in Florida....

  24. Re:This could be a problem... by sputnik73 · · Score: 1

    You might want to read the blurb a bit closer (or follow a few of the links). It's not "Verizon" but "Verisign"
    Verizon is not the same company as Verisign. Two different companies.

  25. Ideally .... by Tranvisor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ideally this is good. Wiretaps are a needed part of law-enforcement. You have evidence against a suspect, you go to a judge, show him the evidence and he makes a informed decison on the matter. Wiretaps, traditionally, were pretty hard to get.

    The part where this breaks down is the recent Patriot act (damn I hate calling it that), where a FBI agent hands a judge a list of 5,000 names and says "I think that these people might be terrorists, gimme a wiretap."

    "Do you have any evidence Mr. FBI agent?"

    "What do you care Mr. Judge? US law says you have to let me spy on these people, even if I don't have any tangible evidence. Just don't mind my wife's name hidden in the list."

    "Ok, here's your signature." (Thinking to himself: Man I wish my job was more than fulfilling the function of a rubber stamp.)

    Without the aforementioned act, this would be semi-good news. With that act, more peoples privacy will now likely be senselessly violated. Oh, well.

    1. Re:Ideally .... by lionchild · · Score: 1

      Call me 'old-fashion' but I still Love My Country, and things like this..make me Fear My Government. I'm willing to be as patriotic as the next red-blooded American. But I still have -some- faith in the courts and in the judges out there to at least look twice at a wiretap or similar spy-order/request.

      Without the checks and ballances we've previously had in place, who will be in charge of oversight? Will there be any oversight? Who keeps track of whose wire we're tapping?

      Imagine the implications if you could convince your long-time friend over in the FBI/CIA/NSA/ETC that you need to have him plug in and give a listen to your political nemisis?

      Say, do you suppose the Secret Service is allowed these broad powers under this act? Could the President order them to wiretap someone, for little to no reason, without someone to keep a check and ballance in place?

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    2. Re:Ideally .... by Fesh · · Score: 2

      "Without the checks and ballances we've previously had in place, who will be in charge of oversight? Will there be any oversight? Who keeps track of whose wire we're tapping?"

      And with the Senate holding up Judiciary confirmation hearings... There aren't enough judges in the Judicial branch to get their regular jobs done and provide said oversight. Convenient, neh? Notice that the Republicans stonewalled Clinton's nominees too. It's not a party thing... Congress as a whole has simply found a way to tip the balance firmly in its favor.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    3. Re:Ideally .... by terrymr · · Score: 2

      So what happens the first time a judge says "I don't think so" when one of these applications comes before him ? Do the FBI arrest him ? or do they appeal to a higher court ? - it just seems to me passing a law requiring a judge to grant a warrant in all cases without meeting any legal standard of proof is denying the judicial branch it's constitutional role in the government of the country.

  26. Small country by sofist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's whay I like to live in a small country and speaking a languange only 2 Million Popole speak - so come on FBI/CIA/NSA tap me, spend millions on translations and listen to all my boring phone calls to my girlfriend...

    1. Re:Small country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you're describing the calls between yourself and your girlfriend as being "boring", I think you have problems other than fear of wiretapping.

    2. Re:Small country by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Funny
      That's whay I like to live in a small country and speaking a languange only 2 Million Popole speak
      Where is Popoland????
    3. Re:Small country by RelliK · · Score: 2
      and listen to all my boring phone calls to my girlfriend...

      So if your conversations are so boring, why do you call her?

      --
      ___
      If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
    4. Re:Small country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Popoland????

      I guess you already know 'Popo' means approximately 'ass' in German...?

      (Anonymous with good reason...)

  27. Voice tapping? by Una · · Score: 1

    Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but does verisign even offer a voice service?
    I havent seen a single thing on their site about offering a voice service.

    Would this be some sort of insight that their planning on offering some sort of VOIP service?

    Or perhaps their just letting big brother listen in on people calling to bitch about why their domain is suddenly under their control. *snicker*

    -Una

  28. There goes the Constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is how the Patriot Act is explained if you follow the link: Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances

    1. Re:There goes the Constitution... by sputnik73 · · Score: 1

      But before you go and buy into that, you should consider the link you followed. Rather than posting a link to the text of the Patriot Act, a link was offered to a group that is strongly opposed to the Patriot Act so, of course, they are going to present you with a description of the act that isn't as wholesome as the US government wants you to believe. My quarrel with this is that the link text was simply "Patriot Act" - which implies that this watchdog organization's view of the Patriot Act is the only view. Don't get me wrong, I think the Patriot Act is a horrible piece of legislation that is trampling our freedoms and should be challenged and, eventually, overturned as unconstitutional but if a link is being provided with the text "Patriot Act", it should go to the text of the Patriot Act. Let's assume for a moment that most readers are intelligent enough to make their own informed decisions and don't need everything interpretted for them. That's my thought on this story.

    2. Re:There goes the Constitution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the Constitution...
      It hasn't been in effect for decades. We've only
      had the appearance of it. The supreme law of this country (and allegedly the rest of the planet--particularly those countries whose legal system is based on English law) is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). This is evidenced by the gold-fringed flag as seen in the courts. It is an Admiralty/Maritime flag and not the proper flag of our country. This is also why arguments, etc., based on the Constitution are routinely ignored in court and can get you cited for contempt. US, Inc. passed laws for its bankruptcy in 1933. I say "US, Inc." because the US is not a country, it is a corporation. Crazy? No. See Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 (it's on the net). More info on the nature of what's going can be found at www.bbcoa.com in the articles section. See the Legal History of the United States.

  29. Hmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how long until Verisign offers this "service" to the business community at large. PI's, security firms, stalkers, and identity thieves will be jumping at the chance to fork over money to them.

  30. Not the US Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Constitution are you quoting from? Article III, Section 2 says nothing of the sort - in fact Article III deals purely with the judicial branch. I don't recall that quote ever appearing anywhere in the Constitution (and it most certainly isn't where you cite it). Check Article I, Section 8 to see an actual list of the powers of Congress.

    Furthermore, the Eighth Amendment does not carry that quote anywhere in it. _Nowhere_ in the Constitution or the Amendments is privacy _ever_ mentioned. The actual text of the Eighth Amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

  31. Let me get this straight by chabotc · · Score: 2

    Ok, let me get this straight, they plan to route all voice calls from/to $TARGET thru verisign.. There's a lot of different phone / conference apps out there, which all use different ports, and most of the time ports are configurable. Presumably the fbi/cia/nsa/mib do not want their wiretaping so easely defeated, so they would want all trafic routed thru verisign right?

    So if you want to find out if you are being wiretaped, simply do a couple of traceroutes and see if you hit verisigns switches? It beats listening to clicking sounds in the background of the phone conversation i gues ;-)

    1. Re:Let me get this straight by Stackster · · Score: 1

      So if you want to find out if you are being wiretaped, simply do a couple of traceroutes and see if you hit verisigns switches?

      Well, since the service is about tapping ordinary voice phone calls, you might have a hard time doing a traceroute.
      Has anyone ever heard someone being able to modulate the TTL of their voice? ;)

      If Verisign were to tap IP traffic as well, they would surely not alter it in any such way. They'd just copy the packet (at some intercept point), send it on its merry way, and have the copy sent to them.

      --

      There are 010 kinds of people. Those who understand octal, those who don't, and 06 other kinds of morons.
  32. Replacing $TARGET by simpleguy · · Score: 3, Funny


    Just replace $TARGET with $VICTIM and then re read the story. *shudder*

    1. Re:Replacing $TARGET by Cutriss · · Score: 2

      Not hard to do...I do this with any story about Verisign. After all, anyone who has business relations with them generally winds up being a victim...

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  33. How secure do you need to be? by outlander78 · · Score: 0, Troll

    How secure do you really need to be, though? I'm sure that most people on this list are not criminals, and don't lead lives so exciting that they're worth listening into. That's not meant as an insult - I'd feel sorry for the poor people stuck tailing me or listening to my phone conversations (most concern wedding planning, which even we don't want to be hearing! :).

    Why is this such a hot button with some people? Do you really think Uncle Sam / Big Brother cares about your personal lives? Unless your doing something illegal (beyond the odd burned cd or speeding ticket), why worry? With limited resources and public pressure for results, the FBI and other law institutions don't have the resources to spy on us all.

    --
    cheers,
    Andrew
    1. Re:How secure do you need to be? by sputnik73 · · Score: 1

      The problem stems from the fact that as the government takes more power to look into your lives, what happens when they decide to add some new laws? Perhaps you're not doing anything illegal right now but this erosion of rights can lead to further erosion of rights. Do you have the right to plan your own wedding? (Silly example perhaps but bold enough so you can see my point.) Right now, you do. But if the government can take away the privacy afforded to you in the Constitution, why can't they take away your freedom of marriage? With their omnipresent eye, they'll be able to catch you in the act of marrying, toss you in jail, and ruin your honeymoon. Constant vigilence is needed to make the government better. We can't that the government is trustworthy nor can we assume that having faith in the government not to abuse privileges. To make a further example: I'm sure your fiancee is very attractive but let's suppose that the chief of police notices this. If the Patriot Act and acts like it take away the need for the government to have a reason to spy on you, what's to stop the chief of police from fulfilling his voyueristic fantasies by installing a few bedroom cameras in your house/apartment? You assume the government will only invade the privacy of criminals while I believe that the government, unchecked, will expand the scope of what is criminal and ALSO invade the privacy of non-criminals (just in case).

    2. Re:How secure do you need to be? by arkanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is precisly one reason why we need to be scared - and why the huge, convoluted body of law we have in this country needs to be cleaned out and thrown away. When everyone is a criminal, they can prosecute anyone they want. Ever lived in a small town and had a bad personal enmity with one of the cops? Heck, or even a big town? They can make your life miserable, because EVERYONE is a criminal. You probably do at least 5 illegal things every day - more than that if you drive.

    3. Re:How secure do you need to be? by rhizome · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good explanation of the line which is plotted in this situation. Sure, people who aren't criminals don't have anything to worry about...yet. Perhaps the original poster can help us in speculating what would happen in the case that nobody was a criminal anymore. Do you think the FBI would just shut down? "Our work is done here, folks! You're welcome."

      No.

      There is a bioscientific concept of "The Red Queen Syndrome" which has been adopted by the cybernetics people and says that as a system evolves far enough to solve its problems, more problems are revealed. In this context, as fewer and fewer people broke the law, more laws would be undoubtedly be deemed necessary. What would US Congress do in a situation of low crime? Your City Council? Making spying on ones constituents easier is not even a slippery slope, it's an increase in the degree of slipperiness.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    4. Re:How secure do you need to be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Read this a while ago on /. and simply regurgitate:

      "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand

    5. Re:How secure do you need to be? by kaoshin · · Score: 1

      Yep. Some of my recent pull overs were for:

      Not wearing a seatbelt.

      Running a stopsign that was pulled out of the ground.

      Having dead taillights coming home after someone stole (brutally yanked) the stereo system out of my car in the parking lot at work, which blew a fuse.

      The cop didn't see my temp tag through the window very well.

      And I don't even have a bad reputation. Just imagine if I did!

    6. Re:How secure do you need to be? by outlander78 · · Score: 1

      How did I get modded to being a troll? No flames, no arguments, just questions and a lack of agreement with the way that the idea of privacy being paramount is taken to extremes. Is disagreeing with popular opinion trolling?

      --
      cheers,
      Andrew
  34. Verisign == Two Headed Demon ? by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

    Your response is 100% in line with the situation.

    Verisign, a company which sells secure communications methods is now in the business of wiretapping?

    A quick look at their product page shows that they are pretty vested in their SSL, PKI (public key infrastructure) and other privacy products.

    Why then would you announce you are working with the Federal(?) government to tap communications. Sure to the stockholders it sounds great, but what about those customers.

    Now they are just another notch up on the scale of slimey companies who will do anything for a buck.

    1. Re:Verisign == Two Headed Demon ? by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      This raises the question of conflict of interest and in my mind makes me wonder whether at some time they might not provide SSL and PKI that has holes to allow the other side of the business more business.

  35. You ever wonder... by toupsie · · Score: 1

    That when the Government screws up, its the citizens that get punished for the mistake? I couldn't believe last week that the FBI's solution to its screw up was to give itself new powers so they can make sure that I go to confession before taking a communion. Spying in churches? Is nothing sacred anymore!?!?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  36. Always one step ahead! by fisman · · Score: 1

    I cannot help but wonder how usefull the efforts put into this service is going to be over the next 3-5 years during the take-over of the world by broadband and IP telephony. With the dissapointing earnings produced by all the major telco's they are all putting a lot of effort into getting IP telephony going in order to boost sales.

    I must say this whole thing is going to let me think twice about that Verisign Certificate I bought which only I have the private key for ...

    I guess the moment we have our SSL encrypted, fully fledged PKI infrastructure based IP telephony system up and running Verisign will be selling our Private keys to the highest bidder!

    Now if you take that into account this is not all that far off the Business Model that Verisign has been following ...

    Maybe they are just one step ahead of the rest of the pack!

  37. What's new about this? by Shoten · · Score: 2

    There are a number of commercial entities that provide these services, or at the very least turn-key systems that handle the information. Do you really think that law enforcement organizations can build their own from scratch? (Yeah, that's funny...imagine Sipowitz from NYPD Blue debugging!) The thing that made this newsworthy is that instead of some obscure firm that solely does LEO support and that 99.9% of the population has never heard of, it's a well-known company this time.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:What's new about this? by fisman · · Score: 1

      And that this self same well-known company happens to be in posession of the private keys of a large number of commercial servers.

      If they climbed into bed with the FED's, as it seems they already have, not even encrypted IP conversations will be safe.

      The way the world is changeing the next step will be ordering of wire taps on internet connections, even SSL ones, and this the government will only be able to do in conjunction with the only bunch with the key to unlock the conversations.

      It is pretty easy to tap into a SSL or IPSEC session if you have the private keys of both the individuals!

    2. Re:What's new about this? by Shoten · · Score: 2

      You should re-read the posting, dude...they're only doing voice wiretapping. I don't know about you, but I can't speak in IPSEC.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  38. Encrypt all telephone traffic? by y8 · · Score: 1

    What if someone develops a way to encrypt all voice phone traffic in the US? Something like ssh for audio (I know that ssh is a bad analogy because of man-in-the-middle attacks). If all phone traffic was encrypted then wiretaps on random citizens wouldn't matter. Just like ssh for remote sessions and gpg for email. I understand the value of wiretaps for legitimate law enforcement, but when it evolves into a Big Brother watch-everyone-for-the-sake-of-the-children kind of thing, we have to fight back somehow.

    1. Re:Encrypt all telephone traffic? by fisman · · Score: 1

      Bet they will use GPG with a Verisign provided key!

      Bet VERISIGN will not be able to decrypt that !

    2. Re:Encrypt all telephone traffic? by madbrain · · Score: 1

      Yes, you could encrypt all voice traffic. This would work well and the feds would indeed not be able to decrypt it. As far as Verisign having the key, they would not unless you used key escrow, but then there would be no point. If Verisign merely signs your certificate, then they have your public key, like everybody else, but not the private key. They will also collect some personal information about you during enrollment, such as your name, address, and your credit card number for payment of the service of issuing the certificate.
      But they never get your private key, so they cannot decrypt the traffic. The most they can do is tell the feds the information they collected when issuing you the cert.

      However, keep in mind that decrypting the traffic is not necessarily the most critical part of wiretapping. Just being able to trace who talked to who (which is visible in a packet trace, even of an SSL session with client auth, by looking at client and server certificates), will usually provide a lot of information. Think of it like this : suspect X made a call to suspect Y at date Z. The content of the conversation is not necessarily critical and sometimes just the fact that the call was made is sufficient, just like the caller id records of phone companies might be.

      I know that storage costs have dropped, but I still have my doubts that phone companies have the capacity to record and keep all phone calls ever made on their lines, just to keep them available for government inspection later on ... If they did it would indeed be urgent to switch to secure telephony.

      --
      -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
    3. Re:Encrypt all telephone traffic? by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 0
      Just being able to trace who talked to who (which is visible in a packet trace, even of an SSL session with client auth, by looking at client and server certificates), will usually provide a lot of information.

      Anonymize! Then you get into VoIP (Voice Over IP), and things like the VoIP equivalent to Triangle Boy where you could "meet" someone for a secure conference at an anonymous server, which could conveniently "lose" the logs after the encrypted conversation...

      The "Patriots" knew you called an anon server, but they don't know who you talked to. If there's enough traffic they might not be able to correlate your incoming and the called party's outgoing packets.

  39. Re:not so terrible? by Super_Frosty · · Score: 4, Informative

    How is this "informative"?

    Didn't anyone notice that his "quotes" from the Constitution are completely bogus? Anyone with basic working knowledge of it knows that Congress isn't given any powers in Article 3 of the Constitution! That section describes powers given to the judiciary.

    The phrase "Anysuch powers as are found Necessary to Provide for the Security of said Lands" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

    Also, there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment about giving up a right to privacy or soverignty. That amendment mentions only cruel and unusual punishment.

    It was a good troll, though.

    --
    No comment at this time
  40. public availability by intermodal · · Score: 1

    I can see the banner ads now... get your tap in telecommunications! you can get wiretapping service at the number of your choice, (if it's not taken), free redirect, up to five POP email accounts, and up to four MB of webspace, all for the rock-bottom price of $70 for two years!

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  41. Smarter than your average criminal by nukeade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't blame Verisign, they're merely complying with tne new regulations as required.

    If you ask me, this wiretapping business is little more than a measure to make us feel safe at the expense of our privacy with little hope of actually capturing terrorists.

    Looking back to 9/11, the feds obviously don't have too much trouble getting a hold of our phone conversations. How do you think that all of those cell phone transcripts were made availabe so rapidly, or evan at all? Someone constantly has the record button on, regardless. We've all read in the news about just how close US agents actually were to these guys using only their previously available methods. Now the US agencies are looking for deniability so they blame "limitations" placed on them. The terrorists aren't stupid, and they obviously know better than to speak in more than vague terms when they are in the presence of a possible rat, including unencrypted communications on the internet and on the phone. They're not using this technology to catch anything but small fish.

    Personally, I'm not afraid of terrorists. I don't think they could ever launch an attack powerful enough to topple the institution that our belief (if hypocritically administered, looking at foreign policy) in individual rights and freedom stand for. What I am afraid of is our paranoid fear in terrorists destroying those rights that have made the free world great. Once our freedoms are gone, we may as well have let the terrorists kill every one of us. Death would be preferable to 1984.

    ~Ben

  42. How would this work? by Rob+Parkhill · · Score: 2

    Does anyone have any idea how this would actually work? I've worked in telecom for several years, and in PKI for several years, and I really don't know how this could work from a technical stand.

    Anyone have any insight? The press release is mighty vague, as usual.

    --
    "Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
  43. Well this should start a trend by gotak · · Score: 1

    Let's all learn Navajo! After all if the Japanese can't break it during the whole pacific war....

    :)

  44. And this affects me how? by Razzious · · Score: 2

    I run the risk of getting hammered here, but I fail to see why this is such a big deal. For years the Feds and other authorities have gotten the wire-taps they needed. Technology progresses and so does their methods.

    I have absolutly NOTHING to hide from the feds. They can tap me all they want. They will hear phone sex with the girlfriend, Hey mom & dad how are ya to the parents, and damn did you see that chick in the corner lastnight to my friends...

    If it stops some jacka$$ from flying a plane into a building them listening to me talk here and there is a small price to pay.

    --
    Razzious Domini
    I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
  45. Get a better list by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

    "Sex" is a keyword? there goes about 80% of the internet's traffic then.

  46. Patriot Act my Arse by Morpeth · · Score: 1

    I especially love the name, the Patriot [sic] Act. Bush is using the so-called war on terrorism to justify trampling over civil rights and expand federal powers to a ridiculous amount. The excuse they had their hands tied pre-911 is a load of crap. Look at the recent info about the 2 terrorists they knew were in this country for more than a year, both involved in the 911 act. They had the information, but the CIA/FBI screwed up, and their answer is to give themeselves more power, it's complete bs. What sickens me the most, is the idea questioning the government is unpatriotic. If it were, we'd all be British still. 911 was terrible obviously, but so is stripping away rights, sneaking by new federal powers, and making anyone who says "wait a minute Uncle Sam" seem like a traitor - isn't much better.

    --

    'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
  47. Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    s/patriot/tyrannist/

    Memebers of the CIA (crimminally incompetent a**holes) and the FBI (fumbles ball intermitently) are not deserving of the title "Patriot", and since this act grants them more power, it is improperly named. A true Patriot loves freedom above all things, and it seems to me that a group that has long violated American freedoms are a far cry from patriotic.

    They should have called it the "Snatch more power and freedom away from the people act." Its sad how they can use their own incompetence to justify this theft of our freedoms and rights. I have no faith in their abilities, and lose more and more faith in the president I helped vote into office. However, it could have been worse, we could have added Gore to all this terror.

    Our forefathers are rolling in their graves. Its funny how they feel more information can help them catch terrorists, however they couldn't even digest the information flow they had. So now with CIA and FBI agents selling this information they shouldn't have on common, everyday people, they want more information and more agents. Try to tell me this doesn't mean that more information will be sold by more criminals in these agencies.

  48. even WORSE, though is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fibbies only seem interested in constitutional rights when it comes to examining the laptops of flight students who don't give a shit about takeoffs or landings, but do wish to learn how to fly straight & level for some reason...
    Me

  49. LINK TO CALEA STANDARDS DOCUMENT by Slinjoy+Cocks · · Score: 1

    Become informed; read the CALEA standard (TIA/EIA- J-STD-025):

    http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:EOI2S1LqKLg C: ftp.tiaonline.org/TR-45/TR452/Incoming/EIA-J-STD-0 25.pdf+J-STD-025+pdf&hl=en

    Let's not forget that modem singalling is also able to be intercepted.

  50. This may not get very far by symbolic · · Score: 2

    Locally we had at least one police department farming out their photo radar to a third-party. In essence, a non-police entity handing out tickets for speeding. It was challenged in court, and several thousand (pending) tickets were thrown out. I don't see much difference between this, and what Verisign is proposing.

    Overall, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have private companies assume responsibilities that belong to the government- especially where enforcement is concerned. It's just one more point of failure - if something goes wrong, it makes it that much easier to pass the blame.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else think that it would take a real stupid t3rr0rist to conduct business in any way that might be tracked so easily?

  51. My problem with this is by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    It's all about the money. I read somewhere (I forgot where) that the average wire-tap costs about $50,000 a pop, and rarely results in a conviction. For me I feel like this a waste of the goverment's (and by extention my) money.

    This kills me that the govt is wasteing my hard earned tax dollars on this crap. Wire taps need to be difficult to get if only because they are too expensive.

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  52. Score -5: Doofus by JCMay · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I am amazed...

    As long as the responsible citizens of the US have the freedom to murder doctors who believe in giving women the right to a safe abortion


    Can you provide a single instance where the murderer of an abortion doctor went unprosecuted? It's been my experience that government at all levels bend over backwards for abortion doctors and clinics. Locally, Meredith Rainey and other Operation Rescue associates were banned from restaraunts that are within a certain radius of a clinic. Never mind that they were only eating breakfast. Never mind that they were paying customers. Never mind they weren't protesting. The police came and threw them out.

    Second, this "right" you speak of? Is it a natural right, like those of the Declaration of Independence? If abortion is the right of the woman where is it? In another window I have a copy of the Bill of Rights open. I find nowhere the right to kill unwanted babies. What say you to her baby's Fifth Amendment right to due process: ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... What United States law has the baby committed that it is worthy of capital punishment? Where is the grand jury indictment, also a Fifth Amendment requirement?

    Give me an example of what someone does wrong, and I'll give you one where we do something else wrong.


    So what? Don't you not know that there's no such thing as good people? There's not. NOBODY is good. I'm not. You're not. CmdrTaco isn't (Sorry, Taco). To think otherwise is to be blind. Have you done anything bad? Have you thought about doing things that are bad? Have you not done things that you knew were good? Go ahead and feel bad for answering yes, but understand that there's never been a person that hasn't answered yes. Pointing out bad in people is easy; it's hardly sporting. Now, keeping that in mind, please direct me to a country that does more right than the United States. You won't be able to.

    Now, after writing all this, I think IHBT...
  53. Re:not so terrible? by warkda+rrior · · Score: 1

    The end always justifies the means for anything that is worth doing. The problem is when the means become a goal in itself...

    --
    You need to install an RTFM interface.
  54. So here what *I* think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Saying that something isn't prohibited by the constitution doesn't make it right nor wrong. It doesn't say anything.


    Then its RIGHT I say.

    What if they tap my phonecalls? They'll waste their cash listening to my whining about the cost of imported beer?
    Oh, what if they tap your whinning about god-knows-what?
    And what if they tap all of your phonecalls? You really think Bob-the-FBI-Officer will give a damn about what you're saying as long as you're following the law?
    You think those officers will sell out your god-given-privacy to some corps, so they can know what you are buying or talking about. Why Psychiatrist dont do the same while we're at it.

    People are being paranoid.
    A tapped call will be the same thing for an officer as an unknown-face is to you when you're taking the bus.

    Enough said, I dont mind having my own phonecall tapped. Got nothing to hide, really, even if im not saying it all out loud.
    You got something to hide? Well, maybe it would be a good idea to actually tap your line.
    1. Re:So here what *I* think by Ryan_Singer · · Score: 1

      I find it absolutly hilarious that you posted anonymous, because that's the point. It's not that I don't have anything to hide, it's that I would feel uncomfortable if the government started taking notes on everything I talk about privately, so that when my political standing (Libertarian), my religion (Reform Judiasm) or even my hair color (dirty blond) becomes something that people discrimmate against, I am a prime canidate for political/religious/haircolor profiling. And that is damn scary.-Ryan

      --
      Ryan Singer
    2. Re:So here what *I* think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what would you do with my name anyway?
      (which is exactly my point, what would the government do if they ear you speak 'bout your religious believes, really?)

      and why bother phonetapping when all you got to do is ask on slashdot for details?

    3. Re:So here what *I* think by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      I was gonna use my mod points on this discussion, but what the heck...

      A few days after 9/11 happened, do any of you remember how the FBI pieced together much of what transpired aboard the hijacked airplanes just before they crashed? That's right, from recorded cell-phone conversations. We've even heard snippets of those conversations in the mainstream media, haven't we? Consider that the next time you're talking on your wireless phone or using your PDA to send information.

      Do you really think that your communications are private now? If you do, you need to wake up and realize that much of your supposed 'privacy' has already fallen by the wayside in this digital age in which we now live.

      Personally, I don't like it much. But it's reality. Our energies are much better used watch-dogging our governmental leadership and crime-fighting forces to make sure that they are using the information properly to perform their jobs - and not to abuse our rights. Which speaks directly to your point about being a prime candidate for some type of 'profiling'.

      Just my 40% of a nickel...

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
  55. Where are the sheep? by thogard · · Score: 2

    So the goverement allows anyone (within limits) to get a wiretap on any unsavory characters. It looks like to me that Al-quada won round 1 where Americans lose all their privacy from the goverment. The intention of Al-Quada was to get Americans so parinoid they use the goverment aginst themselves. 1st rule of terrorism is to use anything you can aginst your enemy--this includes the goverment. They won that round and there is no turning back as long as the pussys keep bending over. So whos going to bend over for round two?

    All this BS over some deaths in the lower east side of NYC? Keep in mind that Sep 11th didn't even make a stistical blip in the death rate in NYC since the first major cold of the winter will kill somewhere between 5 to 10 thousand elderly and wtc only has about 900 confirmed about about 1700 maybes. There have been over 3000 investigations and fraud arrest in NYC for WTC death fraud over this. Consider only about 50,000 people could have been in the area at the time. 3 out of 50 is a very high rate for any illegal activity.

    This may seem a bit callus but most of the people that have tried to rip me off in the last three years worked in those buildings. I don't have any problem with thouse assholes ending up jobless or even dead. I've got names of 8 jerks that were involed with things like over billing fraud, insurance frand and loan fraud that had addresses as 1 WTC or 2 WTC.

    What does bother me is how Americans are bending over and getting screwed in the name of anti-buzworrd of the year. Does anyone remember the concepts that created America? Is histroy that forgotten? Much worse things have happened but can the average American name even one? I suspect not.

    1. Re:Where are the sheep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flame on brother!

    2. Re:Where are the sheep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The word is callous.
      While I'm at it it was not the Lower East Side. It's Lower Manhattan. Technically on the West side if you want to get longitudinal about it.
      I think you maybe you should rethink your attitude about the deaths that occurred there. While you are gleefully dancing around celebrating the death of some Gordon Gecko types in suspenders and too much hair gel, most of the people who died there were office workers and civil servants.
      WTC was an ugly building, no doubt, twin monstrous births with street presence that was downright hostile to human life and a "plaza" that seemed to have been designed by a late twentieth century De Chirico who'd stopped worrying about alienation and learned to love the brutalism. But that's still no reason to fly airplanes into it and kill all those people.
      I suppose I should appreciate your candor as it reflects the fact that most of America hates NYC with a ignorant zeal reserved for inscrutable foreign enemies like Vietnam in the 60s, or they did on Sept. 10th. NYC actually has all the "community" their own communities lack and just as they hated NYC in ignorance, they now profess to love it hypocritically.
      I guess the "wrong" people attacked NYC, and we should just be grateful they were dark of hue. If it had been one of your own "heartland" homegrown terrorists many Slasdotters would be saying as you seem to be "Nooooo Yawk City ? They asked fer it!"
      I'm sure you can appreciate that just as some news reporters and commentators predictably inflated the WTC dead to 7 and 10 thousand, by the same token you can't come to precise figure of the dead by listing identified bodies or even counting bodies.


      Don't pin on Manhattan's Lower East Side or Wall Street even , the blame for John Ashcroft's grabbing of Police State surveillance powers. The FBI -= HAD =- all the information anybody would need to roll up this terror plot before Sept. 11. They don't NEED any additional powers than they had on Sept 10th 2001. Demanding more is John Ashcroft's personal desire to police Americans, not to detect and capture foreign terrorists.

      They didn't catch these terrorists because the foreign policy elites of this country are in bed with Saudi Arabia and didn't want to hear anything about Saudis, many of whom we trained ourselves in terror operations. It would be embarrassing to the CIA, and to Big Oil, and especially to the Bush family who have been business partners with the Bin Laden family and other Saudi terror sponsors for a long time.

  56. What a sad sad life you must lead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel sorry for you.

  57. Verisign controls telephone routing by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative
    Verisign owns Illuminet, which runs the routing backbone for the US phone system, called Signalling System 7 (SS7). This gives them enormous power over the phone system.

    For example, one commonly used feature is "Internet Offload". This replaces ISP modem pools. When you dial up an ISP's "dial-in number", what may actually happen is that the call gets diverted to a unit in your local central office which performs the modem/POP function and forwards the data as IP messages.

    The SS7 system has the database that determines when this happens. Every call today goes out to the SS7 network and its databases to determine where it goes. Thus, control of the SS7 network allows calls to be diverted to wiretapping access points.

    I'm surprised that the telcos put up with Verisign having a monopoly in this area.

    1. Re:Verisign controls telephone routing by ZPO · · Score: 1

      Verisign doesn't really have a monopoly here. There are several interconnected SS7 networks out there. Iluminet/Verisign just has the biggest one.

      Most likely this would be executed as a man-in-the-middle type scenario. SS7 call routing commands would be fed through which would route both the call through a Verisign (probably buying some switches ?DMS-500s? from one of the bankrupt CLECs. Once it hits the controlled switch the call is routed the rest of the way to the targeted destination number. Pen register type taps and associated LIDB dips are even easier.

      Verisign is just giving smaller ILEC/CLECs companies a cheaper alternative to full CALEA compliance. I think all the ILEC/CLEC companies just realized that begging for extensions based on cost just got a lot harder. I'd rather see it done this way than bankrupting more companies.

      If you don't like it then encrypt everything. I have not idea why some people expect privacy and security when sending anything across a public network.

  58. Re:Score -5: Self-Righteous Christian B*st*rd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor Pro-Lifers! The torture that they suffer so that they can impose their views on how other people can live their lives and treat their bodies.

    1. Nowhere in my message does it state that those pro-life monsters don't get prosecuted, but they're free to continue their yihad against abortion clinics, doctors, and patients. Time and time again, their "peaceful" protests turn ugly.

    2. Dear Moron: a fetus is not baby. Not in my eyes. Not in the eyes of most rational people.

    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

    You made a good point against yourself. Liberty, wouldn't that be the personal freedom? Just as it doesn't exactly state the right FOR abortion, there isn't anything stating anything AGAINST abortion.

    So what? Don't you not know that there's no such thing as good people? There's not. NOBODY is good. I'm not. You're not. CmdrTaco isn't (Sorry, Taco).

    That's the point I was stating. No one is right and no is wrong.

    In your blind fanatical rage, your brain shut down. Look at yourself and the garbage you spew out.

    Does more right than the US? Just off the top of my head: Germany, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Japan, Australia, Denmark, and Netherlands.

    Go back to cleaning your gun, take your medication, and memorize the Bible.

  59. Re:This could be a problem... by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

    ...and amazingly enough, they are even spelled differently!

    --
    This is an ex-parrot!
  60. Hmmm Government outsourcing? by 381832100 · · Score: 1

    neeeed a con.spir..acy..... Once upon a time there was a system that would systematically screen every machine based communication... Echelon. I wonder if the NSA is outsourcing its aging snooping machine.. ---> http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa022 100a.htm (not completley off topic) Maybe verisign is leasing a search engine based on Echelon's accumulting database? (google....teoma....echelon!...perfect!)

  61. commie witchhunts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. for those who don't think any wiretapping on them could pose any threat to them: think again, taken out of context and used by skillfull(evil) people any random chatter can be used to make you look like a commie(say, mention that bush sucks cock to your friend).

    war on terrorism on my ass.. much more humane would be putting even third of the increase in defense funds into helping third world countries build themself up, so that they would americanize too and become trailer trash of the south themself, lazy big assed idiots who don't care about anything. there's no need to fear terror from such.

  62. All the more reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to start rolling out VoIP with strong encryption.

  63. Great! by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

    Now they can use their popups as blackmail, anyone who closes them without clicking the ad can be labeled as a terrorist...

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  64. Who did you move it to? by phriedom · · Score: 1

    I have been less than satisfied by the difficulty in moving a domain from one host to another, and would much like to move from VeriSign to another registrar. Who did you move to? Can you provide any links that might help me out? Pretty please with sugar on top. And moderators, this is directly related to the article in question.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  65. incomplete coverup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About a week after the catastrophe, a friend admitted, after much prodding from me, that he though GW was probably behind it in some way, or at least "let it happen." That gave me pause, because the cynic in me could see that the political shift in the aftermath clearly helped GW and his big business friends. How much military spending has been approved since? How quickly did the issue of His Fraudulencey disappear? Then when I read 8 months later that the FBI field agents felt that their pre 9/11 investigation of suspected terrorists had been actively impeded by HQ...it gave me chills. What else will never come to light?

  66. Re:Small country - not funny? by Miska · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks this is more funny than interesting?

    Come one, get it together moderators.

    (looking forward to having my karma decimated)

    --
    -
  67. Verisign's relationship to the gubmint by ajs · · Score: 2

    I've long wondered about Verisign. Any organization that controls most of the digital certificate and domain name registrations as well as buying up commercial PGP have a little more power than I'm thrilled with, but Verisign has something more... they've managed to land some awesome deals with the US government and have done so seemingly without significant competition. Why?

    If I'd suggested yesterday that Verisign was going to get into the wiretapping business, I would likely have been laughed at. Well, it's not a laughing matter any longer. What's next? Ever wonder who else Verisign gives your certificates to?

    Bah! Ignore all of that. There's one and only one reason that you should never do business with Verisign. Their customer support is some of the worst in the world, and that's a challenge. Just call them sometime and try to get an HST record removed... you'll know fear, then you will know pain and then you will wish you were dead to badly paraphrase Babylon 5.

  68. Great. by flacco · · Score: 2

    Now the government can listen to me telling telemarketers to go fuck themselves.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  69. Question is this trolling or flamebait? by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
    Just because something is legal has never meant that it is correct. If a company chooses to do something that we find morally repugnant, then do we really want to stand and watch? One of the ways in which we express our disgust with laws is to refuse to assist until we are forced by legal action.

    Question to those with more expertise on moderating, is the above post a subtle troll or flamebait? Making a buck by filling a need is about what one could say about the sale of drugs.

    1. Re:Question is this trolling or flamebait? by pinkUZI · · Score: 2

      How many times do I have to say this? Could you read the rest of the replies to my post and my replies to them before posting and starting a conversation that has already been had? I'm not defending Verisign - I'm just saying that bitching about Verisign on /. will have no effect. Bitching TO Verisign with have slightly more effect but still not much. Look at the FACTS: 1)the government has passed laws requiring companies to have the ability to wire tap 2)a deadline for having technology in place to do this is approaching 3)there is a legit need for a vendor for this sort of thing as companies MUST comply with federal law 4)Verisign is trying to fill the role of the vendor - if they don't, somebody else will or worse the government will The effective way to make a difference here is to change the law that is causing you grief in the first place. I'm a strong advocate of actually having a voice in government rather than bitching and complaining to everyone around you that your world sucks.

      --
      You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
    2. Re:Question is this trolling or flamebait? by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
      I have read the replies to your post which seemed needlessly provocative.

      You don't seem to understand that there is nothing to say that providing a service that is morally repugnant to someone who is obliged to seek it isn't helping them or the cause. Sure all carriers in the US must provide an interception facility, but does it have to be easy?

      The issue that most people have with the surveillance powers that the government has obtained under the unPATRIOTic act permits a widespread trawl for information that not only infringes upon people's rights, but is counterproductive because the government can not handle the information that it already has.

      I am sorry that I am not rich enough to buy a senator, congressman or whatever. I can choose who I do business with and, sorry, Verisign have screwed up big.

  70. Wiretapping rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad for the increased ease of govt. wiretapping. Screw terrorists.

  71. I agree by Bodrius · · Score: 2

    Not so much that Verisign is acting "wisely", but that the problem should not be dealth with at the Verisign node, and that this is probably wise while the problem has not been dealt with.

    As long as US law makes it disturbingly easy for different agencies to get a wiretap on a private citizen, such wiretaps will happen. If said wiretaps happen, it would be nice if only the FBI were listening to your calls and there were no mistakes in the process.

    If going wiretap crazy creates a logistics problem for the telcos, and the results of the telcos' messing up is more likely to be more private information flying around (I would think it more probable than cancelling the wiretap), I'd prefer them to outsource the effort to someone with a higher level of commitment to the task.

    The telcos' business is not wiretapping. If they screw up, they don't lose business. It would be Verisign's business, however, not to screw up... plus I expect they would be under constant surveillance by the ACLU and similars.

    --
    Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...