Slashdot Mirror
FBI Adds to Wiretap Wish List
WorkEmail writes "A far-reaching proposal from the FBI, made public Friday, would require all broadband Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire their networks to support easy wiretapping by police. The FBI's request to the Federal Communications Commission aims to give police ready access to any form of Internet-based communications. If approved as drafted, the proposal could dramatically expand the scope of the agency's wiretap powers, raise costs for cable broadband companies and complicate Internet product development."
Wouldn't worry about this.
1. The FBI is only "asking" the FCC which, anyway, lacks jurisdiction to tell IRC programmers how to program.
2. The Internet is becoming more decentralzed (e.g. anonymous wireless LANS,P2P networks, etc.) so there will be too many small time non compliant ISPs to go after. And the government, not for want of trying, has so far shown only futile attempts at regulating the Internet.
3. The only people for this are the FBI and a few conservative politicians. They're going up against the communications giants and equipment manufacuters -- financially secure industries with campaign contributions, lobby groups, and lots of lawyers.
4. Besides all that, they just don't get it. Any two connected nodes communicating by pulses (ones and zeros) can always encrypt their conversation. Language is a secret handshake.
I agree generally with the intent your statement, but have two concerns:
1) The government still should not have the right to monitor packets; you don't want them use the 'well, you can always encrypt your traffic' argument to support general sniffing, and
2) Even if they can't decrypt the payload efficiently, they can still tell where the packets are going and presumably draw conclusions from that. Most likely they'd use such conclusions to get warrants for further access to your systems.
For example, you get spam or other traffic from some hijacked computer in Syria/Chad...these days that would be enough to establish possible terrorist links--especially if the payload was encrypted.
No monitoring whatsoever is appropriate.
Yeah, I've met people like that too. They're definitely a small percentage of society, but they do exist. But there are a few points I'd like to raise:
1 - I have a problem with this Puritan idea that work is a moral obligation. "Work" should be something you do to solve a problem: If there's not enough food, you grow more food. If there's a hole in the roof, you fix the hole. If people are dying of disease, you make a vaccine. Our society has reached a point where there aren't enough of those problems to keep everyone employed; so what do we do? We create problems where there weren't any before. 20 years ago, were people truly suffering from the lack of GameBoys?
2 - As a former manager in a small business, I can tell you that I wouldn't want those slackers working for me. I don't want employees who are forced to work for me; I want employees who do the work because they find it interesting, or because they like their co-workers, etc. If I have to give up 0.2 % of my paycheck to keep these lazy fucks out of my hair, I consider that a worthwhile investment.
3 - If we do accept the above-mentioned Puritan work ethic, then we should apply it equally to all. What about the hereditary billionaires who never did a day's work in their lives? If they were forced to work for a living, it might keep them out of mischief. Like running for office.