Posted by
chrisd
on from the law-and-technology dept.
cf_33073 writes "Scary stuff for the privacy advocates out there. Your Internet telephone conversations may soon be tapped by the government. Anyone else concerned about these intercepts being hacked?
Full text of the
RFC
Is available (mirror)"
does this mean that I'll have to start purchasing technology from other countries to keep my own government from snooping on me?
Thank god for September 11 2001
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Don't kid yourself, if September 11 2001 didn't happen, then the current government would have no collective trauma to exploit and introduce all these restrictions of freedom and a total violation of privacy. Only in Nazi, Communist countries do laws say, "well if you got nothing to hide then we can walse into your house uninvited".
Ever since September 11 2001, the hawks and zionists have been laughing in these joyous times. We've seen a complete restriction in our own freedoms, yet they preach to have brought freedom and liberation to Iraq although the place is in total anarchy. Who takes out the garbage, makes the trains run on time, runs the police, fire service, runs the hospitals? Currently nobody and it will be this way for a while.
In case you're wondering if Syria _is next, it is, and then it's the Palestinians and last of all the Osama Bin Laden. This should all have occured in time for the next election, sometime next year. This was expressed in a letter to the president on September 20 2001 by 25 hawks and zionists that have hijacked the whitehouse.
Letter to President Bush
Of course the saddest thing about this letter is that the people who are supposed to be protecting the american people and going after the perpetrators of September 11 seized it as an opportunity to fulfill their personal agendas. This is indeed a slap in the face to the victims and their families and to humanity.
Re:Encryption .. wont be legal much longer.
by
Scaba
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Then it will be made outright illegal, as its placed back on the 'controlled munitions' list.
Re:this isn't an rfc
by
adri
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If the IP world standardises on interception technologies then we'll have some idea of how to thwart it.
Bring it on. I know you're doing it anyway. Bring it on, let people see what you're doing, let privacy advocates explain to the general public that yes, major internet equipment supports sniffing their traffic, look here for the standard and bewm! Maybe you'll get some sympathy.
I've tried explaining to lay people (non-technical friends) what can be done with todays technology and they look at me dumbfounded. Track your position by your cell phone? Huge databases to analyse the spending patterns of people? What about communication interception? Heck, I've shown a few friends pictures of the golf balls in the UK and they still refused to accept it. sigh!
Re:Encryption
by
colenski
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Read your Cryptonomicon. Sometimes, knowing that a conversation took place can yield information as well.
Re:Unpopular, I know...
by
Geekenstein
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No, actually the Constitution does not give the judicial branch of government the power of review.
From the Court's website (supremecourtus.gov):
"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution."
John Marshall, the first Chief Justice established the precedent of judicial review, and it has since become custom as strong as written law. The court's purpose has always been to interpret and explain the laws of the country, but if they put the kibash on something as unconstitutional, it becomes by decree unenforceable under the law(the court being the embodiment of law in the country).
Class dismissed.:)
Re:Welcome to intercept PGPfone
by
ronaldcromwell
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Is Crypto getting secure to the point that we don't have to worry about anyone decrypting our communications? As open-source solutions become more and more viable, will networks like Freenet set the standard in the future for those of us who actually give a rip about privacy? Are we doomed, or is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
Seems to me that VOIP transmissions could be pretty easily encrypted, just like E-mail can be with PGP. In fact, it's easier to encrypt digital traffic than it is any analog device (think POTS phones).
--
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
This is *GOOD* for Privacy concerns.
by
RobertNotBob
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As a geek in the telecom world I have seen the large difference in regulations when it comes to intercepting data vs. voice communications. Here in the USA, judges have known since the creation of our country that speach needs to be protected. However since the dawn of the digital age, the extent to which that protection extends to data has been passionately debated.
I would be very pleased to see legislation that clearly identifies data communication as identical to verbal communication. After reading the document, I think that this (or something close to it) may be exactly what is needed to put a legitimate legal framework around this topic. The more we can make the technical process of LI (lawfull intercept... you did RTA right?) more like the technical process of wire tapping, the easier it will be to approximate the two in the minds of the people who make, judge and execute the law.
-- ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
Slashdot Mirror
does this mean that I'll have to start purchasing technology from other countries to keep my own government from snooping on me?
Don't kid yourself, if September 11 2001 didn't happen, then the current government would have no collective trauma to exploit and introduce all these restrictions of freedom and a total violation of privacy. Only in Nazi, Communist countries do laws say, "well if you got nothing to hide then we can walse into your house uninvited".
Ever since September 11 2001, the hawks and zionists have been laughing in these joyous times. We've seen a complete restriction in our own freedoms, yet they preach to have brought freedom and liberation to Iraq although the place is in total anarchy. Who takes out the garbage, makes the trains run on time, runs the police, fire service, runs the hospitals? Currently nobody and it will be this way for a while.
In case you're wondering if Syria _is next, it is, and then it's the Palestinians and last of all the Osama Bin Laden. This should all have occured in time for the next election, sometime next year. This was expressed in a letter to the president on September 20 2001 by 25 hawks and zionists that have hijacked the whitehouse.
Letter to President Bush
Of course the saddest thing about this letter is that the people who are supposed to be protecting the american people and going after the perpetrators of September 11 seized it as an opportunity to fulfill their personal agendas. This is indeed a slap in the face to the victims and their families and to humanity.
Ray Kurzweil also thinks so .
If the IP world standardises on interception technologies then we'll have some idea of how to thwart it.
Bring it on. I know you're doing it anyway. Bring it on, let people see what you're doing, let privacy advocates explain to the general public that yes, major internet equipment supports sniffing their traffic, look here for the standard and bewm! Maybe you'll get some sympathy.
I've tried explaining to lay people (non-technical friends) what can be done with todays technology and they look at me dumbfounded. Track your position by your cell phone? Huge databases to analyse the spending patterns of people? What about communication interception? Heck, I've shown a few friends pictures of the golf balls in the UK and they still refused to accept it. sigh!
Read your Cryptonomicon. Sometimes, knowing that a conversation took place can yield information as well.
No, actually the Constitution does not give the judicial branch of government the power of review.
:)
From the Court's website (supremecourtus.gov):
"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it
had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had
already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover,
many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard
to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined
the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the
Constitution."
John Marshall, the first Chief Justice established the precedent of judicial review, and it has since become custom as strong as written law. The court's purpose has always been to interpret and explain the laws of the country, but if they put the kibash on something as unconstitutional, it becomes by decree unenforceable under the law(the court being the embodiment of law in the country).
Class dismissed.
Is Crypto getting secure to the point that we don't have to worry about anyone decrypting our communications? As open-source solutions become more and more viable, will networks like Freenet set the standard in the future for those of us who actually give a rip about privacy? Are we doomed, or is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
Seems to me that VOIP transmissions could be pretty easily encrypted, just like E-mail can be with PGP. In fact, it's easier to encrypt digital traffic than it is any analog device (think POTS phones).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
I would be very pleased to see legislation that clearly identifies data communication as identical to verbal communication. After reading the document, I think that this (or something close to it) may be exactly what is needed to put a legitimate legal framework around this topic. The more we can make the technical process of LI (lawfull intercept... you did RTA right?) more like the technical process of wire tapping, the easier it will be to approximate the two in the minds of the people who make, judge and execute the law.
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.