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.
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.
You mean I have a long lost aunt? Cool!
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.
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!
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).
Never confuse volume with power.
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?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
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...
Just replace $TARGET with $VICTIM and then re read the story. *shudder*
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.
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.
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
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.