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?
Welcome to intercept PGPfone
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
All packets are freely available to the fed. No special intercept equipment required. Decryption may be a different story.
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?
Re:Welcome to intercept PGPfone
by
Tuxinatorium
·
· Score: 4, Funny
That is a lie. There are no such things as "packets". They are a fabrication of the American news media. These so-called "1"s and "0"s are committing suicide at the logic gates as we speak. Praise be to Allah!
Re:Welcome to intercept PGPfone
by
1u3hr
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Encryption is useless if your keys are compromised. From the RFC:
* If the information being intercepted is encrypted by the service provider and the service provider has access to the keys, then
the information MUST be decrypted before delivery to the LEA or
the encryption keys MUST be passed to the Law Enforcement Agency
to allow them to decrypt the information.....
* Content Encryption: If the intercept content is encrypted and
the service provider has access to the encryption keys (e.g.,
receives keys in Session Description Protocol for Voice over
IP), then the keys can be sent via IRI. It is, however,
possible for end-users to exchange keys by some other means
without any knowledge of the service provider in which case
the service provider will not be able to provide the keys.
Another fine DMCA violation
by
Renraku
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Add a layer of encryptation to your packets. The government won't like having to waste extra time decoding your Slashdot traffic, so they'll just make it against the DMCA to encrypt your packets.
Eventually, internet traffic today will be like people traffic. I'm sure if I wore a big cloak and walked down the street, the police would be nervous of 'what I'm hiding under there' and might be so inclined to ask me about it.
While its legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a licence, most people don't bother. So criminals and police alike can see that people aren't hiding a rocket launcher on their person or trying to move their crate of coccaine.
-- Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
this isn't an rfc
by
keithmoore
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
it's just a draft by one guy. anybody can submit a draft. it doesn't mean anything in terms of IETF approval. however since it purports it might eventually get published as an Informational document (not a standard).
if you think this is a transparent attempt to get IETF to appear to endorse a heinous activity (as I do) then you might want to write the IESG and/or the RFC Editor (as I intend to) and object to such publication. in order to avoid flooding their normal mailboxes, perhaps someone would like to set up a mailing list?
when governments think they have the right to kill thousands of people with scant justification, the last thing we need is to help them standardize on surveillance technologies.
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!
Why worry about lawful intercept?
by
patbob
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Let's see if I have this right.. you broadcast your packets on a public network where you already assume anyone can potentially get access to them, then you worry about what happens when the government steps in and asks to receive a copy of those packets?
Like what, the government isn't already part of "anybody"?
I'm far more worried about entities that are not part of the government getting a copy of my packets. Flawed though their procedures, checks and balances may be, at least the government folks have some. What procedures, checks and balances are on the criminals?
-- Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
Re:Why worry about lawful intercept?
by
netwiz
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Not really. You don't actually broadcast packets, even at layer 2. In every case, there's a specific destination to the frame. It's like the gov't spying on your mail by opening them all in the post office. And while yes, they can do this, it requires a court order and probably cause to do so (someone back me up, I'm not actually certain of this fact).
As for private entities, packet capture is a time consuming task to perform constantly. I know for a fact that the ISP at which I work moves about a terabyte a day thru the network I maintain. It's not cost-effective (and there's not really any juicy stuff to be garnered), so they (corporations) won't do it.
Plus, the litigious backlash should ISPs start doing this of their own volition would be prohibitively expensive.
Encryption .. wont be legal much longer.
by
nurb432
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The only way these rules will work is if encryption is taken out of the hands of the public.
Can it be accomplished at this point? I donno, but a first start is calling the use of any un-approved ( i.e. , no governmental backdoor key ) encryption cause for the use to be investigated under the patriot act..
Then it will be made outright illegal, as its placed back on the 'controlled munitions' list.
-- ---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
Unpopular, I know...
by
Geekenstein
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But I have to say it. For anyone who isn't a Montana militia, I hate everything law type, this isn't really a bad thing if proper judicial controls are instituted.
We do have an amendment to the constitution that protects against random search and seizure. Frankly, if law enforcement can give enough evidence to an informed judge that the party in question needs to be monitored in connection to a criminal offense, more power to them.
If you really think your geeky attempts at phone sex with some hot level 5,000,000 elf from EverQuest with a +50 con dildo are worth protecting from the evil shadow government, please encrypt!
Oh, and to head off all the "But the PATRIOT Act.." replies I'm sure to get, I firmly believe that its wire tap provisions are too ambiguous and when truly challenged in the Supreme Court, it will be shot down. Amazing how the whole checks and balances thing works, isn't it?
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.:)
And the problem is... what exactly?
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Your Internet telephone conversations may soon be tapped by the government."
Note the lack of the phrase "without a warrant" in this sentence. The RFC talks about "lawful intercept," which means they'd need a warrant before they're allowed to do it legally.
You don't say "without a warrant." The RFC doesn't say "without a warrant." You think maybe we can save our kneejerk reactions for somethingmoreworthy?
Re:And the problem is... what exactly?
by
cranos
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The problem is that governments are trying to move to a point where they don't need warrants.
This is ridiculous. . .
by
Fritz+Benwalla
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Of course I'm concerned that they will be hacked. ..Which is why I advocate that the design of these intercepts be standardized and subject to a public RFC process.
*Of course* we need a mechanism for *lawful* intercepts in this society. Some capability to (shall I say it again) *lawfully* monitor bad guys on the Internet is necessary to protect the rest of us, just as it exists in every other medium including human conversation. What I'm much more concerned about is half-wit J. Edgar Hoover wanna-bes who take an ad-hoc approach to collecting information, not giving a dump about collateral damage, and coyly taking an unregulated look at any other network traffic that "just happens" to get caught in their filters.
I suggest that this RFC is just the right way to go about it:
1. Publicly design a logical box that does what we need it to do and no more. 2. Force the authorities to stay inside that box. 3. Hand them their ass if they're caught outside the box.
As for the/. write-up, it's just (increasingly common around here) ill-informed, let's-go-occupy-the-provost's-office hyperbole.
What the privacy movement needs are intellectuals who can process enough complex facts to actually aid in the effort to balance a society that needs to be both free and safe. Automatically shouting "free!" when someone shouts "safe!" or "safe!" when someone shouts "free!" is not a useful debate. It's not even a good start.
-----
--
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
It's not *that* bad
by
ragingmime
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I did some research on McCarthy a while ago... the atmosphere today isn't nearly as bad as it was in his day. If it was, you'd probably be put on trial before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - which was exempt from the requirement of due process - just for talking negatively about monitoring technologies, and your employer would likely fire you. I guess it's true that heightened fear of terrorism since September 11th has made US citizens a little more agreeable to legislation like the Patriot Act... it may not be the greatest situation, but can you blame us?
-- I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Many of the comments in response to this story demonstrate that the posters have neither read the referenced RFC nor understand the problem it is trying to solve. I'll restate it for the stupid or perpetually lazy among you (i.e. most of you who've responded so far):
Telecommunications companies in many countries must by law provide "assistance to law enforcement" on occasion. Note: in many countries, not just the United States. This assistance has traditionally been in the form of providing call intercept and tracing on voice networks. Some governments in many countries now want to do the same thing for data packets, but moreover, when data networks are used to emulate "traditional" voice services, the existing laws already apply. Just because your ISP's telecom backbone runs over ATM or IP doesn't mean that they're off the hook when it comes to lawful intercept and emergency services (e.g. E911) regulations. When voice is extended to "the edge" in packet form, little changes in that regard.
Now, that said, this RFC proposes an architecture to support tapping data (and any application layer-services that run on it, e.g. voice) in a uniform and scalable manner. Whether you like the idea of tapping or not is immaterial and irrelevant. Service providers must obey the law. If they cannot, they go out of business, or in some cases, never get off the ground. And make no mistake; this RFC is no more about "voice" than any other data service; it describes some of the special problems with enabling the enforcement of existing wiretap laws for packet voice, yet the aim of the RFC is to solve the general problem.
The architecture proposed makes no assumptions about the use of encryption except that no assumptions can be made about the use of encryption; i.e. deliver "tapped" packets to the LEA as packets, not transcoded or decoded into some other format.
Re:I'm thoroughly confused
by
Jeremi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
can someone please tell me how "privacy" has anything to do with "freedom of speech?"
Surely there are things that want to say in private conversation that you wouldn't feel free to say if you knew (or suspected) that you were being eavesdropped on?
For example, the Iraqi government used lack of privacy (informers listening everywhere) to deny its citizens freedom of speech (anyone who was overheard saying something bad about Saddam was hauled off to prison).
--
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Who changed the /. Calendar again?
by
CSG_SurferDude
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Now I KNOW somebody changed the/. calendar on me. We're only supposed to bash Cisco ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH THURSDAYS
and this is Wednesday in the U.S., and not even the right week count.
Can somebody please point me to the revised/. Love|Hate calendar so I can get with the program?
I agree with you, but it's hard to contact a party under watch without causing a stir doing that.
Both parties need to be anonymous.
If you read deeper in cryptonomicon you will remember the idea about constant noise being better than burst traffic.
--
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
The good and bad of this post...
by
El+Camino+SS
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The good news is that everyone thinks you're post was witty and stylish...
Now the bad news...
You're about to get 5000 catalogs in the mail.
I've been preparing for this
by
fobbman
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I speak ROT13 fluently.
Sybase markets USA PATRIOT Act transaction scanner
by
nate.sammons
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This ad from Sybase has information about a "compliance solution" for customers complying with the new USA PATRIOT Act.
From their ad: "It integrates your existing customer and transaction information systems into a consolidated compliance system that detects unusual activity and automates its investigation and resolution in a timely, secure and meticulously documented manner."
Yikes.
What I Want To Know Is..
by
FuzzyBad-Mofo
·
· Score: 4, Funny
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).
Scatterbrained. Maxim 1. If it is true, it is true at the extremes. If it is not true at the extremes, it simply is not true.
You face the possibility of death at the hands of another just crossing the street. Do we embeded GPS systems on every vehicle and on every person with some override system overlooking it? And what if that system fails? Well, another system overlooking that system, ad nausem until the entire world is focused on your safety.
Or we could trust you to look both ways before crossing the street.
Freedom is not the same thing as a right. You are pretty much free to do anything you like (including kill someone). You however do not have the right.
A right implies that you can exercise a freedom without certain consequences. That is the balancing act, not security over freedom.
Basic to rights is the idea that everyone else also has that right (otherwise it is a privilege... see our gov. for more info). Also basic to rights is responsibility. If you can't be trusted to look both ways before crossing the street (i.e.- take responsibility for yourself), you will lose that right to about 3 tons of steel. No law will save you.
The most essential freedom is to live as you choose. Anything else is tantamount to slavery.
And really, aren't you free to kill someone else? Or should I have an illusion of security that this will not happen ('cause that's all security is, an illusion)?
I mean really, BS argument. Security and freedom are mutually exclusive (it has been my experience that those who say they are exclusive are tyrants. Very much like your experience of facing death at another's hands). It is naive to think that just because the is a law that against taking drugs and police to enforce those laws, that somehow someone isn't under the influence as we speak. Perhaps even driving. The laws are a set of consequences, nothing more.
And have you considered the full consequences of the law being purposed? Many calls I make would seem damnable by third parties who are unaware of the rapport I have with the person being called. Should I have to explain myself? Expect the people invading my right to privacy to share my sense of humor? Trust that the persons monitoring my calls would never abuse it? No, I have a right against. You are arguing to take away that right under the guise of an illusion.
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. Quit bitching about it now."
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
William Gibson future HERE WE COME!!..
does this mean that I'll have to start purchasing technology from other countries to keep my own government from snooping on me?
All packets are freely available to the fed. No special intercept equipment required. Decryption may be a different story.
Since the connection is digital, it shouldn't be tough to add a layer of encryption onto your conversation. Let 'em monitor scrambled data.
I'm sure the security experts are much smarter then the hackers.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Add a layer of encryptation to your packets. The government won't like having to waste extra time decoding your Slashdot traffic, so they'll just make it against the DMCA to encrypt your packets.
Eventually, internet traffic today will be like people traffic. I'm sure if I wore a big cloak and walked down the street, the police would be nervous of 'what I'm hiding under there' and might be so inclined to ask me about it.
While its legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a licence, most people don't bother. So criminals and police alike can see that people aren't hiding a rocket launcher on their person or trying to move their crate of coccaine.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
it's just a draft by one guy. anybody can submit a draft. it doesn't mean anything in terms of IETF approval. however since it purports it might eventually get published as an Informational document (not a standard).
if you think this is a transparent attempt to get IETF to appear to endorse a heinous activity (as I do) then you might want to write the IESG and/or the RFC Editor (as I intend to) and object to such publication. in order to avoid flooding their normal mailboxes, perhaps someone would like to set up a mailing list?
when governments think they have the right to kill thousands of people with scant justification, the last thing we need is to help them standardize on surveillance technologies.
Like what, the government isn't already part of "anybody"?
I'm far more worried about entities that are not part of the government getting a copy of my packets. Flawed though their procedures, checks and balances may be, at least the government folks have some. What procedures, checks and balances are on the criminals?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
The only way these rules will work is if encryption is taken out of the hands of the public.
Can it be accomplished at this point? I donno, but a first start is calling the use of any un-approved ( i.e. , no governmental backdoor key ) encryption cause for the use to be investigated under the patriot act..
Then it will be made outright illegal, as its placed back on the 'controlled munitions' list.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
But I have to say it. For anyone who isn't a Montana militia, I hate everything law type, this isn't really a bad thing if proper judicial controls are instituted.
We do have an amendment to the constitution that protects against random search and seizure. Frankly, if law enforcement can give enough evidence to an informed judge that the party in question needs to be monitored in connection to a criminal offense, more power to them.
If you really think your geeky attempts at phone sex with some hot level 5,000,000 elf from EverQuest with a +50 con dildo are worth protecting from the evil shadow government, please encrypt!
Oh, and to head off all the "But the PATRIOT Act.." replies I'm sure to get, I firmly believe that its wire tap provisions are too ambiguous and when truly challenged in the Supreme Court, it will be shot down. Amazing how the whole checks and balances thing works, isn't it?
"Your Internet telephone conversations may soon be tapped by the government."
Note the lack of the phrase "without a warrant" in this sentence. The RFC talks about "lawful intercept," which means they'd need a warrant before they're allowed to do it legally.
You don't say "without a warrant." The RFC doesn't say "without a warrant." You think maybe we can save our kneejerk reactions for something more worthy?
Of course I'm concerned that they will be hacked. .
*Of course* we need a mechanism for *lawful* intercepts in this society. Some capability to (shall I say it again) *lawfully* monitor bad guys on the Internet is necessary to protect the rest of us, just as it exists in every other medium including human conversation. What I'm much more concerned about is half-wit J. Edgar Hoover wanna-bes who take an ad-hoc approach to collecting information, not giving a dump about collateral damage, and coyly taking an unregulated look at any other network traffic that "just happens" to get caught in their filters.
I suggest that this RFC is just the right way to go about it:
1. Publicly design a logical box that does what we need it to do and no more.
2. Force the authorities to stay inside that box.
3. Hand them their ass if they're caught outside the box.
As for the /. write-up, it's just (increasingly common around here) ill-informed, let's-go-occupy-the-provost's-office hyperbole.
What the privacy movement needs are intellectuals who can process enough complex facts to actually aid in the effort to balance a society that needs to be both free and safe. Automatically shouting "free!" when someone shouts "safe!" or "safe!" when someone shouts "free!" is not a useful debate. It's not even a good start.
-----
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
I did some research on McCarthy a while ago... the atmosphere today isn't nearly as bad as it was in his day. If it was, you'd probably be put on trial before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) - which was exempt from the requirement of due process - just for talking negatively about monitoring technologies, and your employer would likely fire you. I guess it's true that heightened fear of terrorism since September 11th has made US citizens a little more agreeable to legislation like the Patriot Act... it may not be the greatest situation, but can you blame us?
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Ahem,
When I am able to have any degree of privacy (short of living in a bomb shelter) would someone please notify me--contact information below.
Roger Hammond
164 Rochester Ln
Tucson, AZ 8546
U.S.A.
Phone:(520)791-4544
Fax: (520)791-4124
Email: rhammond64@excite.com
AIM/MSN/Yahoo!: rhammond64
My Server: rhammond.org
I also post here quite often.
Thank you,
R.E.G. [good thing I didn't tell 'em my middle name]
FEARLESS AND STUPID
Many of the comments in response to this story demonstrate that the posters have neither read the referenced RFC nor understand the problem it is trying to solve. I'll restate it for the stupid or perpetually lazy among you (i.e. most of you who've responded so far):
Telecommunications companies in many countries must by law provide "assistance to law enforcement" on occasion. Note: in many countries, not just the United States. This assistance has traditionally been in the form of providing call intercept and tracing on voice networks. Some governments in many countries now want to do the same thing for data packets, but moreover, when data networks are used to emulate "traditional" voice services, the existing laws already apply. Just because your ISP's telecom backbone runs over ATM or IP doesn't mean that they're off the hook when it comes to lawful intercept and emergency services (e.g. E911) regulations. When voice is extended to "the edge" in packet form, little changes in that regard.
Now, that said, this RFC proposes an architecture to support tapping data (and any application layer-services that run on it, e.g. voice) in a uniform and scalable manner. Whether you like the idea of tapping or not is immaterial and irrelevant. Service providers must obey the law. If they cannot, they go out of business, or in some cases, never get off the ground. And make no mistake; this RFC is no more about "voice" than any other data service; it describes some of the special problems with enabling the enforcement of existing wiretap laws for packet voice, yet the aim of the RFC is to solve the general problem.
The architecture proposed makes no assumptions about the use of encryption except that no assumptions can be made about the use of encryption; i.e. deliver "tapped" packets to the LEA as packets, not transcoded or decoded into some other format.
Surely there are things that want to say in private conversation that you wouldn't feel free to say if you knew (or suspected) that you were being eavesdropped on?
For example, the Iraqi government used lack of privacy (informers listening everywhere) to deny its citizens freedom of speech (anyone who was overheard saying something bad about Saddam was hauled off to prison).
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Now I KNOW somebody changed the /. calendar on me. We're only supposed to bash Cisco
ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH THURSDAYS
and this is Wednesday in the U.S., and not even the right week count.
Can somebody please point me to the revised /. Love|Hate calendar so I can get with the program?
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
... the whole checks and balances thing works. When the Supreme Court does strike it down, I'll be amazed right along with you.
I agree with you, but it's hard to contact a party under watch without causing a stir doing that.
Both parties need to be anonymous.
If you read deeper in cryptonomicon you will remember the idea about constant noise being better than burst traffic.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
The good news is that everyone thinks you're post was witty and stylish...
Now the bad news...
You're about to get 5000 catalogs in the mail.
I speak ROT13 fluently.
This ad from Sybase has information about a "compliance solution" for customers complying with the new USA PATRIOT Act.
From their ad:
"It integrates your existing customer and transaction information systems into a consolidated compliance system that detects unusual activity and automates its investigation and resolution in a timely, secure and meticulously documented manner."
Yikes.
.. does this mean Cisco will honor the evil bit?
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
Scatterbrained. Maxim 1. If it is true, it is true at the extremes. If it is not true at the extremes, it simply is not true.
You face the possibility of death at the hands of another just crossing the street. Do we embeded GPS systems on every vehicle and on every person with some override system overlooking it? And what if that system fails? Well, another system overlooking that system, ad nausem until the entire world is focused on your safety.
Or we could trust you to look both ways before crossing the street.
Freedom is not the same thing as a right. You are pretty much free to do anything you like (including kill someone). You however do not have the right.
A right implies that you can exercise a freedom without certain consequences. That is the balancing act, not security over freedom.
Basic to rights is the idea that everyone else also has that right (otherwise it is a privilege... see our gov. for more info). Also basic to rights is responsibility. If you can't be trusted to look both ways before crossing the street (i.e.- take responsibility for yourself), you will lose that right to about 3 tons of steel. No law will save you.
The most essential freedom is to live as you choose. Anything else is tantamount to slavery.
And really, aren't you free to kill someone else? Or should I have an illusion of security that this will not happen ('cause that's all security is, an illusion)?
I mean really, BS argument. Security and freedom are mutually exclusive (it has been my experience that those who say they are exclusive are tyrants. Very much like your experience of facing death at another's hands). It is naive to think that just because the is a law that against taking drugs and police to enforce those laws, that somehow someone isn't under the influence as we speak. Perhaps even driving. The laws are a set of consequences, nothing more.
And have you considered the full consequences of the law being purposed? Many calls I make would seem damnable by third parties who are unaware of the rapport I have with the person being called.
Should I have to explain myself? Expect the people invading my right to privacy to share my sense of humor? Trust that the persons monitoring my calls would never abuse it? No, I have a right against. You are arguing to take away that right under the guise of an illusion.
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. Quit bitching about it now."
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.